undefined

points

[-]

As I understand it, the star altitude is measured relative to an artificial horizon.

How did it determine "down" in a moving airplane? Was it essentially doing the high-tech equivalent of dangling a rock on a string with some dampening (in a gyroscopic cage to avoid being affected by the airplane's rotation), or something smarter?

When I looked into whether astronavigation would be solvable cheaply or somehow trivially using modern hardware, I found this a surprisingly difficult problem even on a static platform - inclinometers that would get you down to 0.01° accuracy (which would still translate to a ~1 km positional error if I'm not mistaken, roughly what a skilled sailor is supposed to be able to do with a sextant) are expensive even today.

With a moving, shaking platform that's changing position (i.e. a perfect gyro will point perfectly in the wrong direction after a few minutes of flight) and might be flying turns (which makes "down" point in the wrong direction) that seems hard to solve.

by kens2 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

The B-52 star tracker used a gyroscope to determine vertical. The Astro Tracker was stabilized by a bunch of motors and synchros so it matched the gyroscope. Thus, the Astro Tracker was a stable platform even as the aircraft pitched and rolled. (Footnote 4 in my article shows the vertical gyro attached to the Astro Tracker.)

by themadturk6 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

This may seem like a stupid question...but what about when it was cloudy? Can I assume the BFF was flying above the clouds most (or all) of the time?

by kens5 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Yes, haze and clouds were a problem at low altitudes, but most of the time the aircraft was above the clouds. The Aurora Borealis (northern lights) was potentially a problem; the system included an aurora filter.

by sebmellen8 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

Was the star tracked manually by the navigator (as in, did they have to manually “look for” and keep track of it)? Fascinating article, but I’m not grokking how it was used in practice.

by kens8 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

The device has a spiral search mechanism to find the star. Then it locked onto the star and automatically tracked it. So this was unlike the Apollo star tracker where the astronaut has to manually aim at the star.

by roger_8 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Thanks, I was looking through the article for exactly that. Does it lock on to a configuration of stars?

Really curious how they did this mechanically.

by kens7 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

I'll probably write another article on the star tracker itself. But I can give you a quick summary of the spiral search mechanism. It was electromechanical: a motor turned a resolver, a device with coils to generate sine and cosine from the shaft angle. This gives the X and Y deflections for a circle. These signals went through potentiometers that were also turned by the motor to produce constantly growing magnitudes, so you get a spiral. But you need to slow down the motor as you spiral outwards since you're covering a much larger linear region. So the motor also turns a stepping switch that progressively reduces its speed.

Once the system finds a star, a complicated feedback mechanism keeps it locked onto the star. There is a spinning slotted disk in front of the photomultiplier tube. If the star is off center, the output will peak when the slot lines up with the star. Thus there is an error signal with phase that indicates the direction to the star. This signal is demodulated to produce X and Y signals that change the aim to move towards the star.

by montyanne6 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

I would absolutely love to read something about that - thanks for putting in the work and sharing it.

I have a buddy working on restoring a set of binoculars that were attached to the Target Bearing Transmitter system for a US sub from the 50s. Last I heard he was able to find someone that actually had parts of the original schematics for it so that he’s able to machine some new pieces.

These things are definitely a labor of love.

by palm-tree7 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

Am I right in thinking it didn't matter which star it locked onto, and it didn't need to know which star it was? Would it be a problem if it locked onto another celestial body (e.g. Venus)?

by kens7 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

No, it needed to lock onto the right star, the one that matched the coordinates. Otherwise, it would be pointing in a random direction. The navigator would check against three different stars to detect an error.

The system could also use planets or even the sun for navigation. A special filter was used with the sun to avoid burning out the photomultiplier tube.

by js26 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Ah, so it could be used in the daytime. I read the whole article assuming it was only useful at night. (When else would you be flying a bomber and need high accuracy?)

by teamonkey3 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

The SR-71’s star tracker was so sensitive it could track stars during the day.

https://theaviationgeekclub.com/the-sr-71-blackbird-astro-na...

by srean8 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

Reads like a labour of love. Thanks for sharing.

by kens8 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

We couldn't find a wiring diagram so I had to trace out every wire.

by msla3 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

Since the article doesn't mention: I've read that ICBMs used celestial navigation. Is this similar to what contemporary missiles used? Do we even know at this point?