It even says it in these papers

They're comparing computational models for different data sets for easy of computation, or computability

Is the model outdated now? anything before 1995 shouldn't be cited in Zoology unless it's a huge deal

Absolutely, we have far better computing power in a wrist watch than a 1985 supercomputer

That's an exaggeration

But still

We have significantly better tools

Up until the mid 90's a lot of controllers were still analogue in areospace and even transport

Digital computers have made leaps and bounds being able to record gigabytes of data on a whim

So this FE proof is comparing the processing speed of how fast computers from 1985 can deal with satalitie data?

Compare that to 64kB of RAM

😏

Not specifically that no

I have 32 Gb in my personal computer

It's just that instrumentation has got a lot better so we don't really have to simplify the controllers too much

I wonder how many spaceships I could run

<:GWbruhGalaxyThink:405065193287319552>

Sometimes, the error on additional corrections isnt needed at low altitude because your percentage error is too low

However

PID controllers have an accumulated error and need correcting

What if you only fire a rocket for 20 minutes?

What would that cumulative error mean?

Does your maneuver need to be that specific?

Absolutely not

That's why we don't simulate things in absolute detail

We even used sextants and classical mechanics on the way to the moon

Okay so, we simplify physics in some cases because we don't need to calculate everything?

You could calculate the spacetime curvature in GR

But you don't need to

Yeah

It's kinda laziness then?

That's the jist of it

Well, think of it this way

Diminishing returns on investment

You could correct all the problems but if they're not really problems because you don't need the precision why bother?

Okay that makes sense

"One is an analytical approach using a flat-Earth approximation to predict geopotential information quality as a function of spatial wavelength."

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Could you sum up why this paper isn't FE proof like in a sentence or two?

I'd try but I'm a little lost reading your simplification

He basically summed it up with the satellite statement he made initially