FCC Chair says US is too dependant on GPS, wants alternatives

>That is why we will vote on an inquiry to explore other Positioning, Navigation, and Timing (PNT) systems that can be complements or alternatives to GPS.

I'm going to go full curmudgeon and assume this means some private company who will have a different system ... centralized.

Expect a sole-source contract for SpaceX to add GNSS features to the Starshield constellation.

Resurrecting LORAN, see also eLORAN. This seems a dead end because of cost, and who will voluntarily buy and install the receivers? Even if it were compatible with LORAN-C receivers, all of them have been removed from airplanes. They’re not going back in.

In aviation we still have VORs, and most airplanes have receivers. The VOR MON (minimum operational network) program retains a minimum number and spacing of VOR transmitters expressly as a back up for GPS/WAAS degradation, which does occur regularly, or failure.

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/at...

https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/flight_info/aeronav/acf/medi...

https://www.nstb.tc.faa.gov/rt_waassatellitestatus.htm

But OK, if we think an event that renders GPS non-functional for many years is reasonably likely, and may prevent space based navigation redeployment?

eLORAN would seem to tick a lot of boxes, but does mean widespread receiver replacement.

While GBAS exists, it’s a local augmentation system. Redeployment with ground based GPS probably doesn’t work because of the frequencies, low transmission strength, and ground clutter.

What about redeployment of existing GPS satellite technology in high altitude airships?