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

It's a FE proof which requires space and satalities

<:thonk:485324336874651650>

1. We use a lot of approximations in controllers
2. Assuming a flat stationary non-rotating plane is a decent approximation.
3. Experiments report cumulative error
4. Large experimental errors are telltale of large appoximation components.
5. It's a satellite in orbit. Contradicts the point.
6. Most papers quote their approximations.

For information gathering purposes, a flat plane with all data directly displayed in relation to its surroundings makes for an easier and more efficient system. The plane contains only about 30% of the known area of the earth, and the paper specifically cites the cases and reasons for why the Flat model used has situational advantages over a spherical or elliptical model. It is not an FE proof.

If using satellites to prove the earth is required then you've accidentally accepted that sallites are real and in orbit

So you'd have to reconcile that too

Orbit in turn demands gravity

If satellites were balloons they wouldn't call it an approximation

It would just be the flight controller algorithm

The papers would instead be all about controlling lighter than air objects in winds

*They're not*

Which has nothing to do with the shape of the earth.

🤔

Exactly