Strategic Initiatives
12237 stories
·
45 followers

Cellphone-Location Tracking Poses Privacy Test at Supreme Court - WSJ

1 Share

LLM (google/gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview-20260303) summary:

  • Geofence Warrants: investigators demand massive location data sets from technology companies to track individuals near specific geographic coordinates during defined timeframes
  • Digital Surveillance: law enforcement utilizes gps pings bluetooth beacons and wifi data to compile involuntary movement logs of citizens
  • Privacy Concerns: critics view these broad data dragnet operations as unconstitutional intrusions that expose intimate details of public life
  • Judicial Review: the supreme court is evaluating whether such digital evidence collection violates fourth amendment protections against unreasonable government searches
  • User Complicity: consumers voluntarily provide personal location history to corporations which then inevitably surrender this information under government pressure
  • Selective Impact: individuals like recreational cyclists traveling near crime scenes become accidental targets of law enforcement algorithms due to habitual digital tracking
  • Corporate Posturing: technology monoliths now claim to protect user privacy by shifting data storage methods while still profiting from their surveillance ecosystems
  • Law Enforcement Necessity: government officials maintain that these invasive tracking tactics are essential tools for solving major crimes and investigating cold cases

April 26, 2026 11:00 am ET

Gainesville Police Department cars parked outside police headquarters.The Gainesville, Fla., police had sought location data from Google. Chris Day/AP

Zach McCoy hadn’t done anything wrong. But when Google sent him a cryptic, legalistic email in early 2020 notifying him that the police were demanding access to some of his data, he was alarmed.

“I thought, ‘If the police department was trying to get my Google account, there’s no way that anything good is going to happen to me,’” McCoy recalled. “It was all I could think about.”

McCoy, now a 37-year-old resident of Tampa, Fla., had been swept up in a cutting-edge law-enforcement tool: so-called geofence warrants, which allow investigators to obtain a trove of cellphone-location data and identify anyone who was near a specific place at a specific time.

These broad, location-based warrants have emerged in the past decade as an important tool for law enforcement. Most famously, federal investigators used them to identify hundreds of people who were present during the riot at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

But “geofencing” has also created misplaced suspicions about law-abiding citizens and spurred legal challenges around the country.

Now, the Supreme Court is weighing a bank-robbery case from Virginia to decide whether geofence warrants are an unconstitutional invasion of privacy. The case, set to be argued Monday, is the latest test of how a core provision of the Bill of Rights—the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government—applies in the digital age.

McCoy, who works in tech support for a software company, was unaware of the legal debate around geofencing when he became a target of it.

After receiving the email from Google and scrambling to hire a lawyer, he learned that the police in Gainesville, Fla., where he was living at the time, were looking into a March 2019 burglary. Unluckily for McCoy, the home that had been burglarized was located on a street where he regularly rode his bicycle in a loop.

On the day of the burglary, McCoy had cycled past the address three times. He was using a fitness app that tracked his movements with pinpoint accuracy, and the digital trail was stored in his Google account.

So when Gainesville police served Google with a warrant seeking the location data of any user who had come near the home on the day in question, McCoy’s repeated presence would have raised obvious suspicion.

His lawyer filed a lengthy motion that persuaded investigators to drop the warrant, and McCoy moved on with his life. Six years later, he says he understands why police rely on location data to generate leads but is glad the Supreme Court is reviewing the practice.

Geofence warrants instruct technology companies to turn over data about any of their users who passed through a given geographic radius during a particular window of time. The area encompassed by the geofence can be larger than several football fields. Minute-by-minute location tracking is based on GPS data, pings to nearby cellphone towers, Bluetooth beacons and Wi-Fi connections.

The data can be remarkably effective at identifying new suspects in cold cases. But it can also reveal information about the movements of innocent people, including their visits to sensitive places like churches, doctor’s offices or political organizations.

Defenders of geofence warrants say the challengers overstate the privacy implications. They point out that users consent to share their location data with technology service providers, and they argue that people have no right to privacy when visiting public places.

“An individual has no reasonable expectation of privacy in movements that anyone could see, that he has opted to allow a third party to analyze for its own purposes, and that are sufficiently short-term that they reveal little, if anything, about the patterns of his life,” the Trump administration’s solicitor general, D. John Sauer, wrote in a legal brief.

Moreover, Sauer wrote, eliminating geofence warrants would “handicap the investigation of major crimes.”

The case at the high court was brought by Okello Chatrie, who is serving a 12-year prison sentence for robbing a credit union near Richmond, Va. Chatrie says the geofence warrant that was used to identify him was unconstitutional.

Privacy advocates, civil-liberties groups and tech companies have weighed in on Chatrie’s side, urging the Supreme Court to limit the use of the warrants. Alphabet unit Google, meanwhile, has taken a step to curb them.

More than 500 million Google users have the platform’s location-history function enabled, and until recently, the company had stored all of that data on its own servers. But by July 2025, the company had migrated the data to users’ individual devices. So Google no longer has the technical ability to search its user database and identify all users who were present at particular locations. 

Google filed an amicus brief at the Supreme Court describing users’ location data as a kind of “digital diary of a person’s travels” that should have strong privacy protections under the Fourth Amendment. 

Despite the company’s new practice, geofence warrants can still be effective for police to gather location information from other tech companies that store it in the cloud. And the Supreme Court’s decision, which is expected by early July, could affect similar efforts by law enforcement to obtain users’ data in other ways.

McCoy, for his part, is like millions of Americans: He routinely allows apps to record his location. Even his brush with a geofence warrant six years ago didn’t change that.

“I’m a technology enthusiast; I gain a lot from these types of things,” McCoy said. “And because I work in technology, I understand that this was an edge case.”

Copyright ©2026 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

James Romoser is a reporter covering the Supreme Court for The Wall Street Journal. He joined the Journal in 2025 after serving for two years as the legal editor at Politico. Before that, he was the editor of SCOTUSblog and wrote a column on legal affairs for National Journal.

After graduating from Columbia, James began his career at the Winston-Salem Journal, where he covered everything from tobacco farming to state politics. He then detoured to law school at Georgetown and briefly became a First Amendment lawyer. But after realizing he missed news too much, he returned to journalism.


Up Next


Videos

Read the whole story
bogorad
4 hours ago
reply
Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain
Share this story
Delete

Good news for business travellers

1 Share

LLM (google/gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview-20260303) summary:

  • Business Travel Reality: the vast majority of corporate employees are relegated to cramped economy seating rather than the luxury cabins they might expect.
  • Corporate Policy Constraints: company travel mandates frequently restrict premium bookings in favor of basic or premium economy fares for most staff.
  • Airlines Marketing Tactics: carriers are pivoting their focus toward monetizing the economy section through incremental upgrades and varied seating configurations.
  • Transformed Seating Products: novel options like couch-style rows are being introduced to provide marginal relief for passengers stuck in long-haul misery.
  • Bunk Bed Innovation: air new zealand is piloting a specialized pod system allowing passengers to pay extra for brief windows of horizontal rest.
  • Operational Trade Offs: subtle improvements like additional legroom are driven by weight reduction strategies to minimize expensive jet fuel consumption.
  • Continued Premium Focus: airline management remains firmly committed to high-margin luxury travel as evidenced by the expansion of private business suites.
  • Incremental Revenue Extraction: these service developments reflect a cold corporate effort to systematically upsell travelers on basic comfort.

“Upgrade your experience,” purred an email from an airline that was about to fly me on a 16-hour work trip the other day. “Don’t miss the opportunity to enjoy the Business Class experience!” 

If I could, believe me I would, I thought. Instead, I did what a lot of business travellers do and prepared for what airlines call the “main cabin” and the rest of us know as the noisy, knee-crushing misery of economy. 

I say “a lot” of business travellers, but this is understating things. Just over 90 per cent of people travelling for business in busy British airports flew economy in 2018, the last year UK officials issued such figures. 

Many were doubtless making a quick hop between European capitals, but even on longer flights elsewhere, a business trip by no means guarantees a seat in business class.

In the US and Canada, 57 per cent of company travel policies allow business-class fares at least sometimes, especially once flights last longer than five or six hours, according to the Global Business Travel Association. 

But that is a lot less than the 64 per cent allowed for premium economy, the slightly roomier class between basic economy and business that the association says is now a mainstay of corporate travel programmes. 

All this goes to show that turning right on a work trip means you will be in good company. And as it happens, life in economy is finally about to look up.

Airlines that have spent years boasting about the fine wines and velvety pyjamas they hand out in business have finally begun to turn their attention to the wretches down the back.

The other week, United Airlines announced it would soon start selling tickets on long-distance flights in Relaxed Row, a line of three economy seats that can be turned into a couch. Not a couch long enough for me to lie flat on, but better than the usual sit-up seating.

Germany’s Lufthansa and Japan’s ANA already offer something similar. But the idea was pioneered more than 15 years ago by Air New Zealand, which is now taking a big leap further with one of the best developments in cconomy flying I have seen for, well, ever.

It’s called the Skynest: a pod of six bunk beds that passengers in economy and premium economy can book for four-hour periods from next month, initially on the airline’s 17-hour New York to Auckland flights. 

This will cost an extra US$495 and I imagine there will be no shortage of takers. 

True, it is not entirely pleasing to think of climbing into a bunk bed someone else has just vacated, even though fresh bedding will be provided. There will doubtless be snorers, grunters and would-be conversationalists to contend with and Air New Zealand warns that users will need to get in and out of the nest on their own, “which may involve bending, kneeling, crawling, or climbing”.

But the idea of being able to stretch out for several hours on a very long flight is delightful in the extreme.

And the good news does not stop there. On a lesser but still encouraging note, the UK’s easyJet budget airline has just announced there will be two inches of extra legroom on seats it plans to install on new planes from 2028.

No one should think these developments are due to the goodness of the collective hearts of airline executives.

The new easyJet seats will be more than 20 per cent lighter than existing ones, which should cut the cost of the jet fuel that can be the largest component of operating costs when fuel prices are high, as they are now.

Likewise, the economy upgrades at United and Air New Zealand are no sign that airlines are abandoning their lucrative passengers in business and first class.

Air New Zealand recently joined the many carriers adding an upgraded business class option. Its “premier luxe” business seats have a fully closing door for extra privacy and an ottoman that can double as “a guest seat for companion dining”.

As for the new economy seats, they will doubtless turn out to be an extension of airlines’ endless drive to entice us to pay more for added comforts, at prices that gradually rise. 

Still, for the many business travellers who do not actually fly in business, they are a welcome glimmer of hope. And with luck, they will not be the last of their kind.

Read the whole story
bogorad
5 hours ago
reply
Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain
Share this story
Delete

DHS Is Considering Reality Show Where Immigrants Compete for Citizenship - WSJ

1 Share

LLM (google/gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview-20260303) summary:

  • Bureaucratic Proposal: the department of homeland security is currently reviewing a pitch for a reality television show where immigrants compete for potential citizenship status.
  • Producer Credentials: the concept was created by a reality show producer whose background includes the series duck dynasty.
  • Proposed Format: the program envisions contestants participating in activities such as mining for gold or reassembling vintage vehicle parts to prove their assimilation.
  • Contestant Journey: the planned production involves participants traveling across the country on a train with individuals being eliminated after each episode.
  • Vetting Process: administrative officials claim to receive hundreds of similar media proposals annually and are subjecting this specific pitch to standard review procedures.
  • Historical Context: the producer has allegedly shopped this same television pitch to government agencies during previous presidential administrations without success.
  • Publicity Focus: critics observe that the current department leadership prioritizes theatrical public relations campaigns and media exposure over substantive operations.
  • Political Optics: the agency head continues to generate headlines through staged visits to foreign facilities while utilizing significant financial resources for controversial messaging campaigns.

Updated May 16, 2025 11:00 am ET

You may also like
Up Next
CheckboxEmbed code copied to clipboard
Your browser does not support HTML5 video.
0:00
Playing
0:12 / 1:04
Earlier this year, Kristi Noem toured a high-security prison in El Salvador holding Venezuelans who were deported from the U.S. under a wartime law. Photo: Alex Brandon/Reuters

The Department of Homeland Security is considering being part of a television show in which immigrants would compete for potential U.S. citizenship, an idea the producer pitched as far back as the Obama administration.

Department spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin said she had spoken to the producer of the proposed television reality show and that consideration of the idea was ongoing.

It is “in the very beginning stages of that vetting process,” she said, adding, “Each proposal undergoes a thorough vetting process prior to denial or approval.”

The pitch for the proposed citizenship-competition show comes from Rob Worsoff, a producer and writer whose credits include the “Duck Dynasty” reality show. Worsoff, who emigrated from Canada, told The Wall Street Journal that the show is meant to be hopeful and a celebration of what it means to be an American citizen.

“This isn’t ‘The Hunger Games’ for immigrants,” Worsoff said. Immigrants already in the system would compete in various contests including potentially on American history and science. Worsoff stressed that losing contestants wouldn’t face deportation. “This is not, ‘Hey, if you lose, we are shipping you out on a boat out of the country,’” he said.

Worsoff’s outreach to DHS was earlier reported by the Daily Mail.

In a 36-page slide deck reviewed by the Journal, Worsoff’s team outlines a reality-style TV show where, in one-hour episodes, immigrants compete to prove they are the most American. In one challenge set in San Francisco, for example, immigrants would compete in a gold rush competition where they are sent into a mine to retrieve the most gold. In another episode, contestants would be divided into teams and placed on an auto assembly line in Detroit to reassemble the chassis of a model T.

The slide deck envisions the show beginning with the contestants sailing to Ellis Island, where they are greeted by the show’s host, a famous naturalized American. (As examples, the producers suggest the actors Sofia Vergara, Ryan Reynolds or Mila Kunis.) The contestants would travel across the country on a train. After each episode, one seat on that train would be eliminated.

McLaughlin, the DHS spokeswoman, said the department receives hundreds of pitches a year for potential television shows, ranging from documentaries about border security operations to programs about white-collar investigations. It isn’t uncommon for national and local law-enforcement agencies to consult with television producers. DHS worked for years with the producers of “To Catch a Smuggler” on Disney’s National Geographic network.

DHS Secretary Kristi Noem’s tenure as the department’s head has been marked by a made-for-TV style that has prioritized publicity—at times at the expense of operations, the Journal previously reported. The department has earmarked more than $200 million for an ad campaign featuring Noem telling immigrants in the country illegally to go home.

Kristi Noem testifying before the House Homeland Security Committee.Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem during a hearing on Wednesday. Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

On a recent trip to the El Salvador superprison where the Trump administration has incarcerated hundreds of men without due process, Noem posed in front of the prisoners sporting perfectly styled curls and a $50,000 Rolex watch.

Worsoff said he has had no interaction with Noem and isn’t aware of whether she has knowledge of his show idea. He said the feedback from DHS has been positive and he has already had preliminary discussions with networks.

McLaughlin said Noem hadn’t reviewed the pitch of any scripted or reality show.

This isn’t the first time Worsoff has pitched this concept to the government. He said he had talks about making the show with DHS during the Obama and Biden administrations, but the project didn’t come together. 

Write to Michelle Hackman at michelle.hackman@wsj.com, Elizabeth Findell at elizabeth.findell@wsj.com and Joe Flint at Joe.Flint@wsj.com

Copyright ©2026 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

Appeared in the May 16, 2025, print edition as 'Homeland Security Mulls An Immigrant Reality Show'.

Michelle Hackman is a reporter in The Wall Street Journal's Washington bureau, where she covers U.S. immigration policy. Her coverage includes writing about the southern border, legal and employment-based immigration, refugee resettlement, care of unaccompanied children, immigration enforcement and relevant legislation on Capitol Hill. Previously, she wrote about health and education policy in Washington.

Michelle first joined the Journal in 2016 and is a graduate of Yale University. She can be reached on Signal at the username mhackman.59. 

Elizabeth Findell is a Texas-based national reporter for The Wall Street Journal covering politics and U.S.-Mexico border issues. She spends much of her time traversing the Lone Star State and others chronicling the communities and personalities shaping, and shaped by, national policies.

Since joining the Journal in 2019, Elizabeth has covered a range of issues including the Covid-19 pandemic, the Uvalde school shooting, Texas border security operations, business growth, legislative wrangling, hurricanes and battles for control between local, state and federal governments. In 2023, she reported from Germany as an Arthur F. Burns fellow, focusing on immigration and far-right political sentiment.

Elizabeth previously covered local government for the Austin American-Statesman, the Dallas Morning News and, in the Rio Grande Valley, for the Monitor. She is a native of Steamboat Springs, Colo., and a graduate of Colorado College. She can be reached on Signal at the username efindell.10. 

Joe Flint is a media and entertainment reporter for The Wall Street Journal based in the Los Angeles bureau covering everything from broadcast networks and sports to cable and streaming. He writes about companies such as Netflix, Apple, Warner Bros. Discovery, Walt Disney Co. and Amazon. Joe first joined The Wall Street Journal in 1999 in New York and left in 2006. He rejoined The Wall Street Journal in 2014 after several years with the Los Angeles Times.

Joe has also been a senior writer at Variety and Entertainment Weekly. With more than three decades of experience, Joe is considered the dean of media reporters.


What to Read Next


Videos

Read the whole story
bogorad
5 hours ago
reply
Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain
Share this story
Delete

It’s Been 100 Days. How’s Mamdani Doing? - by John Ketcham

1 Share

LLM (google/gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview-20260303) summary:

  • Performative Governance: the mayor frames trivial activities as major successes to disguise a lack of substantive progress during his first one hundred days in office
  • Childcare Deception: despite campaign rhetoric regarding universal childcare the administration has only secured limited funding for a small fraction of the city's youth
  • Policy Regression: previously promised rent control measures have been quietly abandoned in favor of board appointments that adhere to existing legal mandates
  • Public Safety Hypocrisy: crime reductions are attributed to the continuation of police strategies that the mayor vocally opposed during his election campaign
  • Fiscal Irresponsibility: the administration ignores mounting subway violence and rising felony assaults while simultaneously attempting to gut essential police overtime budgets
  • Inefficient Infrastructure: pothole repair counts are touted as achievements despite failing to match the historical performance levels of past administrations operating with fewer resources
  • Socialist Fantasy: the attempt to emulate historic sewer socialism is undermined by an inability to manage public sector unions or control rising municipal labor costs
  • Economic Deterrence: proposed tax increases and expensive vanity projects like city-owned supermarkets threaten to drive capital out of the city amidst a softening economy

Courtesy Matthew Hoen/NurPhoto via Getty Images

On Sunday evening, Zohran Mamdani held a rally in Queens to mark his first 100 days as mayor of New York City. At the event, Mamdani rattled off a series of small-bore accomplishments— and downplayed his major campaign promises. It was the continuation of a broader trend: Mamdani paired small, performative gestures accompanied by big announcements with questionable judgement about the city’s budget and economy.

With supporters and city employees surrounding him and waving signs reading “Pothole Politics” and “N.Y.C. Groceries,” Mamdani began by casting his first months in office as a success story.

“With what we’ve accomplished in 14 weeks,” he said, “imagine what we can do together in four years.”

“Accomplishments” typically mean tasks already completed. But for Mamdani, it apparently means what he’s announced. Take childcare: “We began with a promise: Universal childcare. And by day eight, we delivered it,” he said.

Parents listening may have wondered whether they missed the memo. Mamdani has not delivered universal childcare. He secured $1.2 billion from Governor Kathy Hochul to fund childcare for roughly 2,000 children in four lower-income neighborhoods beginning this fall. He anticipates the program will grow to 12,000 children by fall 2027. But if the city’s botched 3-K for All program is any guide, parents have reason to be skeptical before counting on the mayor’s promise of a seat.

Mamdani’s most memorable campaign promise—freeze the rent—has also now suddenly transformed. “I am proud of the six new members I appointed to that independent board,” he said of the Rent Guidelines Board, which determines rent increases on rent-stabilized units, “and I look forward to the decision they will come to in just a few short months.”

The mayor seems to have learned that the board is legally required to make its decisions based on a range of factors, including operating costs and tax increases—something City Journal readers have known for nine months. He has toned down the rhetoric because he’s rightly afraid of a strong legal challenge to his freeze-the-rent pledge.

Mamdani also touted his supposed public-safety gains. There have been real gains in some crime categories, but they’ve come because Mamdani has backtracked from his pledges to end homeless sweeps and has allowed Police Commissioner Jessica Tisch to continue doing what works. He has embraced the optics of order, in other words, while relying on the policing approach he repeatedly derided on the campaign trail.

But not all is well on the public-safety front. Felony assaults are up nearly 50 percent since 2019 and are now at 1998 levels, even as homicides have fallen to historic lows. The Manhattan Institute’s Nicole Gelinas has shown that subway violence has risen significantly during Mamdani’s term so far.

Saturday’s triple stabbing in Grand Central’s subway station is a grim reminder of what the summer crime season may bring. The mentally disturbed assailant was ultimately stopped only after a police officer on overtime duty shot him when he refused repeated orders to drop his machete. Mamdani, meanwhile, is trying to curb police overtime costs.

The mayor also leaned into “pothole politics,” asking: “How can we promise to transform our city if we can’t pave your street?” He celebrated filling more than 102,000 potholes since January.

While that is more potholes than were filled during the last several years of fairly mild winters, it also represents a return to historical norms. In 2011, the Bloomberg administration filled over 400,000 potholes, even as it had about 750 fewer workers and $200 to $300 million less in inflation-adjusted funding.

Filling potholes and addressing other basic functions of government is good, and for that Mamdani deserves credit. But there are many reasons to be concerned that the mayor and his administration won’t get the big things right. The city’s economy is softening rapidly, and his proposed tax increases would only give high earners and firms more reason to expand somewhere other than Gotham.

Mamdani also doubled down on his democratic-socialist brand by invoking “sewer socialism”—a reference to early 20th-century socialist mayors such as Milwaukee’s Daniel Hoan. Try as he might to tie himself to this legacy, Mamdani still has much to prove before he can earn the comparison. Hoan, whom Mamdani has mentioned as a model, earned his reputation by building durable infrastructure, increasing government capacity, and delivering services efficiently and at scale.

By contrast, Mamdani is celebrating “making good” on his promise to build five publicly owned grocery stores in four years, backed by what will likely amount to hundreds of millions of public dollars. The first one announced will open in East Harlem by 2029, at a cost of $30 million, over three times the typical cost to build out a private supermarket. That’s hardly comparable to building major infrastructure, especially in a city that has about 11,500 grocery stores operating on thin margins.

As the liberal commentator Matt Yglesias wrote last year, the sewer socialists’ pragmatism stood in contrast to the ideological wing of the socialist movement that wished to defeat capitalism. Mamdani seems intent on straddling both camps, speaking the language of managerial competence while indulging the impulses of redistribution and class antagonism.

He certainly hasn’t pruned his ideological zeal. The loudest cheers at the rally came not in response to his accomplishments or even his promises, but from his call to tax the rich. For his base, taxation isn’t about delivering quality public services at reasonable cost. They wish to punish their least-favored class.

There’s another reason Mamdani can’t claim the competent “sewer socialist” mantle. As Manhattan Institute President Reihan Salam has pointed out, Milwaukee’s socialists a century ago did not contend with public-sector collective bargaining. They thus had a much freer hand to govern the public workforce, and their fiscal constraints forced prioritization.

So far, Mamdani has shown little appetite for taking on these entrenched interests. New York’s labor costs make up about half of the municipal budget, but Mamdani is not seeking significant labor savings in his attempt to balance the budget. He has only begrudgingly signaled, for example, that he would ask the state to delay its mandate to reduce class sizes—a policy that functions largely as a full-employment program for the city’s teachers’ union.

Governing New York City requires making hard tradeoffs. So far Mamdani seems to prefer the illusion that small gestures and big announcements can wave away the city’s problems. Record-breaking rents suggest that, in reality, he’s falling further behind his central promise to make the city more affordable.

The first 100 days suggest a mayor comfortable performing his part. He has about 1,300 left to deliver real results.

Share

Read the whole story
bogorad
6 hours ago
reply
Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain
Share this story
Delete

Mamdani’s East Harlem Grocery Store Boondoggle // While staying true to his socialist roots, New York City’s mayor has chosen one of the worst possible options to achieve his affordability goals.

1 Share
  • Municipal Expansion: Mayor Zohran Mamdani announced the first of five planned city-owned grocery stores, to be located at La Marqueta in East Harlem.
  • Fiscal Commitment: The project is slated to receive $30 million from the city’s capital budget, with the facility operating rent-free and tax-free while requiring union labor.
  • Statistical Dispute: The administration’s claim of a 66% rise in grocery prices is based on a misinterpretation of consumer spending data; the actual Bureau of Labor Statistics index shows a 34% increase in the New York City metro area over the same decade.
  • Market Consequences: The city-funded store faces criticism for using taxpayer resources to directly compete with local, tax-paying entrepreneurs and small businesses.
  • Alternative Solutions: Proposals for better utilizing the $30 million include upgrading existing store infrastructure, improving public transit access to current low-cost retailers, and reforming land-use policies.
  • Development Potential: Modifying the current configuration of NYCHA developments to include mixed-income housing and ground-floor retail could attract private supermarkets and generate sustainable revenue for the city.

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani has announced the first location for one of the five promised city-owned grocery stores. The 9,000 square-foot store will be built on a city-owned vacant site under the Metro-North railroad viaduct at La Marqueta, near Park Avenue and East 116th Street, in Manhattan’s East Harlem neighborhood.

The city will finance the store’s construction with $30 million from the capital budget. The store will have no debt service. Though privately operated, it will pay no rent or property tax.

Finally, a reason to check your email.

Sign up for our free newsletter today.

First Name*
Last Name*
Email*
Sign Up
This site is protected by hCaptcha and its Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Thank you for signing up!

Mamdani’s plan proposes, in essence, that the city will compete with local grocery stores—using public subsidies to lower the cost of staple foods—and that it will do so while paying store employees union wages.

It is by no means clear that both objectives are possible without additional subsidies. Nor is this extravagant expenditure at a time of budget stringency the most effective way to achieve Mamdani’s food-affordability goals for East Harlem residents.

The mayor’s rationale for his public grocery-store venture, as stated in a recent press release, is that “[g]rocery prices in New York City have risen nearly 66% over the past decade—significantly outpacing the national average.” That’s a bogus statistic, and we can trace how the mayor’s staff made that error. The press release links to a report from New York State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli, who indeed finds that something increased by 66 percent: New York metropolitan-area consumers’ spending on food eaten at home, from 2012–2013 to 2022–23. That statistic, which includes spending by affluent people in the suburbs who shop at premium stores, says nothing about prices.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics publishes a separate price index for the cost of food consumed at home for the New York metropolitan area. Not surprisingly, the local index tracks the national index closely (see chart below). Over the ten-year period from March 2016 to March 2026, the food-at-home price index for the New York City metro area increased by 34 percent, versus 32.5 percent for the national index.

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics; Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

New Yorkers live in an expensive region. Moreover, East Harlem has long struggled to bring affordable food to its residents. Historically, the neighborhood depended on small supermarkets run by individual entrepreneurs and was shunned by big regional and national retailers. The small stores often fell short of the standards set by large grocers, with high prices and limited access to fresh fruits and vegetables.

In the 1990s, a huge political battle erupted over a proposal to construct a Pathmark supermarket on a city-owned site at East 125th Street and Third Avenue. Leading the opposition were entrepreneurs who operated small supermarkets in the neighborhood. They feared the big new store would drive them out of business.

The Pathmark opened in 1999 and became hugely popular. But it lasted only 16 years, closing in 2015 with the bankruptcy of its parent company, A&P. Today, the site is a vacant lot, and the grocers left standing are mostly the same small operators. They have benefited from the population growth of the East Harlem community district, Manhattan 11, from 117,743 in 2000 to 133,493 in 2020.

The small grocers provide walk-in convenience for East Harlem’s low-income population, but they cannot achieve the purchasing and operating economies of scale enjoyed by Pathmark in its heyday. Fortunately, East Harlem residents also have access to an Aldi supermarket in the East River Plaza shopping mall at the east end of 117th Street. Part of a larger national chain, the East Harlem Aldi offers a large selection of private-label items and advertises its low prices.

Aldi may operate successfully in East Harlem because the shopping mall’s parking garage attracts a more affluent clientele from a broader area of the city. Nonetheless, its operating model (and that of its rival, Lidl) likely provide a better answer to Mamdani’s concerns about food affordability, and at no extra cost to the city.

The city council will need to approve the proposed La Marqueta grocery lease. Council Speaker Julie Menin was noncommittal and expressed concern about the impact on local businesses. Local grocers figure to be strongly opposed, as they should be. The city should not be using taxpayer resources to undercut businesses that pay taxes and comply with other applicable laws, all to benefit one favored operator.

What should Mamdani do instead? The city could take the same $30 million and use it to help local entrepreneurs upgrade their stores—for example, with energy-efficient equipment. Such aid could be conditioned on competitive pricing of staples, though the city may lack the capacity to monitor these agreements effectively. The city could also upgrade bus service along East 116th Street, making it easier for residents without cars to reach stores like Aldi.

More broadly, the city should reconsider the land-use patterns of East Harlem, which limit access to services widely available elsewhere in Manhattan. A band of aging New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) buildings stretches across Harlem and East Harlem between East 112th and East 115th Streets, with additional large NYCHA projects extending for blocks to the north and south in Community District 11. The result is a vast, government-engineered concentration of poverty.

In keeping with the benighted planning theories of the time, those NYCHA projects have no retail stores within them. They do have large open spaces suitable for new construction and the potential for selective demolition and tenant relocation within the developments. By allowing new, higher-income housing within NYCHA developments while retaining existing tenants, the city could attract new supermarkets that will not only upgrade the local retail environment for all residents but also yield rent-paying revenue in ground-floor spaces that helps underwrite the costs of new housing.

True to his socialist principles, Mamdani has chosen one of the worst possible options to achieve his goals. He should be more pragmatic, and the city council should help him get there.

Eric Kober is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute.

Read the whole story
bogorad
8 hours ago
reply
Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain
Share this story
Delete

The electromechanical angle computer inside the B-52 bomber's star tracker

1 Share

LLM (google/gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview-20260303) summary:

  • Celestial Navigation Necessity: archaic manual techniques were prone to human error and inefficiency despite claims of being jam proof and infrastructure independent.
  • Automated Complexity: the 1960s b 52 system relied on an absurdly intricate electromechanical apparatus termed the angle computer to force trig calculations into hardware.
  • Analog Delusion: the system pretended to mirror the celestial sphere physically rather than calculating positions through efficient digital computation which was deemed too expensive or unreliable at the time.
  • Mechanical Clutter: nineteen distinct components and layers of amplifiers were required just to track a star, highlighting the extreme overhead of maintaining such a fragile antique.
  • Interface Obsolescence: the data entry process was painfully manual, relying on knobs and analog dials as if rotating a radio dial would somehow equate to modern precision navigation.
  • Mathematical Rigidity: relying on published paper almanacs for stellar coordinates ensured that navigators were perpetually dependent on static data for a dynamic and constantly changing universe.
  • Geometric Arbitrariness: the reliance on the first point of aries and other historical celestial markers serves as a reminder of how humans impose flawed imaginary grids onto the heavens to avoid getting lost.
  • Transient Technology: the angle computer was a fleeting, desperate attempt to bridge the gap between physical clockwork mechanisms and the nascent electronic era before being rightfully replaced by superior digital systems.

Before GPS, how did aircraft navigate? One important technique was celestial navigation: navigating from the positions of the stars, planets, or the sun. While celestial navigation is accurate, cannot be jammed, and doesn't require any broadcast infrastructure, it is a difficult and time-consuming process to perform manually. In the early 1960s, an automated system was developed for the B-52 bomber to automatically track stars and compute navigation information. Digital computers weren't suitable at the time, so the star tracking system performed trigonometric calculations with an electromechanical analog computer called the Angle Computer.1

The Angle Computer contains complex electromechanical systems. Click this image (or any other) for a larger image.

The Angle Computer contains complex electromechanical systems. Click this image (or any other) for a larger image.

The photo above shows the mechanism inside the Angle Computer.2 Although it may look like a gyroscope or IMU (Inertial Measurement Unit), it is completely different and nothing is spinning. The Angle Computer physically models the "celestial sphere", with a complicated mechanism inside that moves a pointer that represents the position of a star. The corresponding angles (the azimuth and altitude) are read out electrically through devices called synchros, providing information to the navigation system through bundles of wires. In this article, I'll give an overview of how celestial navigation works and explain how the Angle Computer performs its calculations.

The Astro Compass system

The Angle Computer is one piece of the Astro Compass, a system that locked onto a star and produced a highly accurate heading (i.e., compass direction), accurate to a tenth of a degree. While the heading is the main output from the Astro Compass, the navigator can also use it to determine position, using the "lines of position" technique described later.

The Astro Tracker was mounted on top of the aircraft with the plastic bubble sticking out.

The Astro Tracker was mounted on top of the aircraft with the plastic bubble sticking out.

The Astro Compass navigation system was built around the "Astro Tracker" (above), the optical system that tracks a star. The Astro Tracker was mounted on the aircraft with the 4-inch glass dome protruding from the top of the fuselage. This unit contains a tracking telescope, which used a photomultiplier tube to detect the light from a star. A gyroscope and a complicated system of motors provided a "stable platform", keeping the telescope precisely vertical even as the aircraft tilted and moved. A prism rotated and tilted to aim the telescope at a particular star.3

Star tracker instruments in the B-52 navigator's instrument panel: Line of Position display, Master Control panel, Heading Display panel, and Indicator Display panel.  From Kollsman MD-1 Automatic Astro Compass Manual.

Star tracker instruments in the B-52 navigator's instrument panel: Line of Position display, Master Control panel, Heading Display panel, and Indicator Display panel. From Kollsman MD-1 Automatic Astro Compass Manual.

The Astro Compass system is bewilderingly complicated, consisting of 19 components (above) to support the Astro Tracker.4 On the right are the ten amplifier and computer components that controlled the system; the Angle Computer is in the lower right. On the left are the nine control and indicator panels that were used by the B-52's navigator. The photo below shows four of these panels in use in a B-52 in 1972.

The navigator's station in a B-52. Some of the Astro Compass controls are indicated with arrows: the Line of Position display and the Master Control on the left, and the Heading display and Indicator display to the right. The navigator in this photo is Carl Hanson-Carnethon. From Rob Bogash's B-52 photo album. This specific B-52 (#2584) is now at The Museum of Flight, Seattle, but the Astro Compass is no longer present.

The navigator's station in a B-52. Some of the Astro Compass controls are indicated with arrows: the Line of Position display and the Master Control on the left, and the Heading display and Indicator display to the right. The navigator in this photo is Carl Hanson-Carnethon. From Rob Bogash's B-52 photo album. This specific B-52 (#2584) is now at The Museum of Flight, Seattle, but the Astro Compass is no longer present.

Controlling the Astro Compass

The Astro Compass has an interesting user interface, letting you input one value at a time by rotating a knob. First, you use the Master Control Panel to select a data value such as the clock time, SHA (Sidereal Hour Angle) for star #1, or Declination for star #3. Then you turn the "Set Control" knob clockwise or counterclockwise to scroll through the data values until the proper value is reached. Each knob on the Master Control Panel has a different geometrical shape, allowing the user to distinguish the knobs by feel. The Master Control Panel is visible in the lower left corner of the photo above, within easy reach of the navigator.

The Master Control Panel is the main interface to the Astro Compass.

The Master Control Panel is the main interface to the Astro Compass.

Each data value has a separate electromechanical display. The photo below shows a Star Data display, indicating the sidereal hour angle and the declination for a star. I removed the cover so you can see how the digital display actually consists of analog dials rotated by motors under synchro control. The system has three Star Data displays, so it can hold the positions of three stars at a time. Getting fixes from three different stars is useful when computing lines of position. The system uses one star at a time, but you can quickly change stars by flipping the Star switch on the Master Control Panel.

A Star Data display with the cover removed.

A Star Data display with the cover removed.

But how did the navigator obtain the information to put into the Astro Compass, since the sun, moon, stars, and planets are in constant motion?5 The necessary celestial information is published in a book called the Air Almanac. The US Government started publishing the Air Almanac in 1941, issuing a new volume every four months. The Almanac had a sheet for each day, providing celestial data on 10-minute intervals. The first column has the time (GMT, Greenwich Mean Time)6 while the other columns give the position of the sun, an important value called the First Point of Aries (symbol ♈︎), the positions of the visible planets, and the position of the moon. A separate table and chart provided the locations of stars; the stars don't have daily updates since they are almost stationary.7 (The Air Almanac is now online; you can download the 2026 Air Almanac here.)

An excerpt from the 1960 Air Almanac. Photo used with permission from tanasa2022, who is selling the Almanac on eBay.

An excerpt from the 1960 Air Almanac. Photo used with permission from tanasa2022, who is selling the Almanac on eBay.

The navigational triangle: Computing a star's position

The Air Almanac provides star coordinates in a global coordinate system, but the Astro Compass needed to know star coordinates in the aircraft's local coordinate system. Determining the star's position requires changing the coordinate system by using spherical trigonometry and something called the navigational triangle. There's a fair bit of terminology involved, which I'll explain in this section.

The Astro Tracker, like many telescopes, is aimed by using azimuth and altitude. Suppose you go into your yard, point at the horizon, and turn 360° in a circle; the direction you're pointing is called the azimuth. The point directly overhead is called the zenith. Now swing your arm upwards 90° from the horizon to the zenith. That angle is called the altitude. (Confusingly, the term "altitude" is used both for the angle of a star and the height of an aircraft.) Thus, if you point at a particular star, you can describe its position with two angles: your horizontal rotation from north gives the azimuth, and the angle up from the horizon gives the altitude.8 This system is called the horizontal coordinate system, as it is based on the horizon. (The word "horizontal" comes from "horizon", by the way.) This is a local coordinate system since other locations will have a different azimuth and altitude for the star. The azimuth and altitude constantly vary with time because the Earth's rotation makes the star appear to move.

The equations for the altitude and azimuth are complicated, with sines, cosines, arcsine, and arctangent. To see why the equations are complicated, consider a time-exposure photo of star trails. As the Earth rotates, each star forms a circle around Polaris, the North Star. To trace out this circular path, the altitude and azimuth vary in a trigonometric way. This computation is performed electromechanically by the Angle Computer, as will be explained later.

Kitt Peak National Observatory beneath star trail. Credit: DESI Collaboration/DOE/KPNO/NOIRLab/NSF/AURA/L. Tyas, CC BY 4.0.

Kitt Peak National Observatory beneath star trail. Credit: DESI Collaboration/DOE/KPNO/NOIRLab/NSF/AURA/L. Tyas, CC BY 4.0.

Now let's switch to how the position of a star is defined in the Air Almanac (for example), independently of your local position. Pretend that the stars are on the surface of a large sphere that surrounds the Earth, called the celestial sphere. The stars are stationary on the surface of the celestial sphere, while the Earth rotates once a (sidereal)9 day in the middle. Thus, as you look up at the celestial sphere, you see the stars moving. You can extend the Earth's equator out to the celestial sphere, defining the celestial equator. Likewise, the celestial sphere has celestial poles, matching the Earth's poles. On the Earth, you specify a location (such as the airplane's location) with latitude and longitude (red). Latitude is measured from the equator, and longitude is measured from a fixed meridian (orange). The 0° meridian is arbitrarily defined to pass through Greenwich (England, not Connecticut). Similarly, the position of a star is specified by the angle from the celestial equator (called declination instead of latitude) and the angle from the meridian (called the sidereal hour angle or SHA instead of longitude).10

The celestial sphere, with the Earth at the center. The position of a star is described by Sidereal Hour Angle and declination, analogous to longitude and latitude describing the position of, say, an airplane on the Earth. The diagram is based on patent 2998529, "Automatic astrocompass".

The celestial sphere, with the Earth at the center. The position of a star is described by Sidereal Hour Angle and declination, analogous to longitude and latitude describing the position of, say, an airplane on the Earth. The diagram is based on patent 2998529, "Automatic astrocompass".

But what meridian is the starting point—0°—when measuring a star's Sidereal Hour Angle? The celestial equator matches the Earth's equator, but this won't work for the Greenwich meridian because it is constantly in motion. Instead, the 0° celestial meridian is arbitrarily defined as the position where the sun crosses the equator at the vernal equinox (the start of spring). If you consider the position of the sun on the celestial sphere, the sun will travel around the sphere once a year. Because the Earth's axis is tilted, the sun will be above the equator half the year and below the equator half the year, crossing the equator at the vernal equinox (March) and the autumnal equinox (September).

This reference point on the celestial sphere is called the First Point of Aries, represented by the symbol ♈︎ (horns of a ram); you might remember this symbol from the Air Almanac. At this point, the sun is in the constellation Pisces. So why is this point called the First Point of Aries and not Pisces? Back in 130 BCE, the ancient Greek astronomer Hipparchus defined the First Point of Aries as the starting point for the sun's motion. In that distant era, the sun was in the constellation Aries at the equinox, not in Pisces as it is today. It turns out that the direction of the Earth's axis isn't fixed, but moves in a 26,000-year cycle called the precession of the equinoxes.11 A 26,000-year cycle may seem irrelevant, but it's fast enough that the sun has moved from Aries to Pisces since Hipparchus's time. (And the equinox has moved 1° more since the B-52 was first produced!)

(All this talk of Aries and Pisces may sound like astrology, and, yes, there is a direct connection. Aries is the first zodiac sign, starting at the vernal equinox, typically March 21. The equinox's precession is "backwards", so the equinox has moved to Pisces, the last zodiac sign. Astronomically, the equinox will move into the constellation Aquarius around 2600 CE, but astrologers disagree on whether the Age of Aquarius has started; perhaps the 1960s was the dawning of the Age of Aquarius.)

How do you convert the star's fixed coordinate to the Earth's rotating coordinate? First, you look up the angle between the Greenwich meridian and the celestial meridian of Aries at a particular time. This angle (purple) is called the Greenwich Hour Angle of Aries (GHA ♈︎). Next, you look up the star's Sidereal Hour Angle (SHA). Adding them gives you the star's Greenwich Hour Angle (red), the angle between the Greenwich meridian and the star. Subtracting the aircraft's longitude gives you the Local Hour Angle (LHA, not shown), the angle between the aircraft's meridian and the star. (Note that these steps are simply addition and subtraction, so a mechanical system can easily do them with differential gears.)

Computing the Greenwich Hour Angle of the start on the sphere.

Computing the Greenwich Hour Angle of the start on the sphere.

The final step, obtaining the azimuth and altitude, requires tricky spherical trigonometry. The yellow triangle is the navigational triangle, a spherical triangle on the surface of the celestial sphere. The upper vertex is the North Pole, the red vertex is the airplane's zenith (i.e., directly above the airplane), and the final vertex is the star. Two sides of the triangle and an angle (purple) are known, so the remaining angles and sides can be solved with spherical trigonometry. Specifically, the first side (purple) is 90°-declination, the second side is 90°-latitude,12 and the angle between is the LHA (Local Hour Angle). Solving for the angle at the zenith gives the azimuth (blue), while solving for the third side gives 90°-altitude (green, the angle down from the zenith to the star).

By solving the navigational triangle, the altitude and azimuth can be obtained.

By solving the navigational triangle, the altitude and azimuth can be obtained.

Thus, the key problem is solving the navigational triangle. Navigators could solve the navigational triangle by looking up angles in a thick book of "sight reduction" tables and performing some math. But how could the process be automated? That was the purpose of the Angle Computer.

The Angle Computer

The job of the Angle Computer was to solve the navigational triangle mechanically. Its inputs were the star's declination, altitude, and local hour angle. From these, it computed the star's altitude and azimuth at the aircraft's current position.13

The concept behind the Angle Computer is that it physically modeled the celestial sphere with a half-sphere, 2 5/8" in radius. A star pointer was mechanically positioned on the surface of this sphere, using the star's declination and local hour angle, adjusted by the latitude of the viewer. The star pointer moved a readout mechanism that translated the star's position into the azimuth and altitude at the specified location. Thus, the Angle Computer mechanically converted between the coordinate systems by using a physical representation, solving the navigational triangle.

The diagram below shows how the star pointer is positioned on the two-dimensional surface of the sphere, using a complicated mechanism inside the sphere. The U-shaped declination arm swings up and down, corresponding to the star's declination (angle above the celestial equator). Meanwhile, the declination arm constantly rotates around the polar axis, as specified by the LHA (Local Hour Angle). In one (sidereal) day, the mechanism will make a full cycle, corresponding to the Earth's spin. Finally, the latitude arm moves the mechanism up or down, corresponding to the viewer's latitude. On the right, three gears provide the inputs for latitude, LHA, and declination.

The input mechanism for the Angle Computer. The photo has been rotated 90° to better match the
Earth's rotation. Rotation around the polar axis corresponds to the Earth's daily rotation. Note that the star pointer will hit the end of the semicircular azimuth arc at some point; this corresponds to the star moving to the horizon and setting.

The input mechanism for the Angle Computer. The photo has been rotated 90° to better match the Earth's rotation. Rotation around the polar axis corresponds to the Earth's daily rotation. Note that the star pointer will hit the end of the semicircular azimuth arc at some point; this corresponds to the star moving to the horizon and setting.

A separate mechanism provides the altitude and azimuth outputs, driven by the star pointer. The key is the semicircular azimuth arc, which represents the arc from the viewer's horizon to the zenith, oriented to a particular azimuth. The star pointer is attached to the azimuth arc through a slider, so as the star pointer moves, it moves the slider along the azimuth arc and also rotates the azimuth arc. Specifically, the azimuth arc represents the line from the horizon to the zenith at a particular azimuth. The position of the slider on the azimuth arc corresponds to the altitude, from 0° at the horizon to 90° at the zenith.14. The azimuth arc rotates around the zenith point, which is at the back of the azimuth arc; this rotation indicates the azimuth value. As the azimuth arc rotates, it turns a gear at the zenith, providing the azimuth output. The slider arc has teeth on it; as the slider moves, these teeth rotate a second gear, providing the altitude output.

The output mechanism for the Angle Computer. The mechanism is in a different position from the
previous diagram. In particular, the latitude arm has been raised to a near-polar latitude and the photograph is from
the other side of the latitude arm. At this latitude, the polar axis is almost lined up with the zenith. As the LHA changes, the star will move in a circle, rotating the azimuth arc but causing little change in altitude. This corresponds to the real world situation of stars moving in a cirle around the zenith, if you're near the pole.

The output mechanism for the Angle Computer. The mechanism is in a different position from the previous diagram. In particular, the latitude arm has been raised to a near-polar latitude and the photograph is from the other side of the latitude arm. At this latitude, the polar axis is almost lined up with the zenith. As the LHA changes, the star will move in a circle, rotating the azimuth arc but causing little change in altitude. This corresponds to the real world situation of stars moving in a cirle around the zenith, if you're near the pole.

From the back, the numerous synchro transmitters, synchro control transformers, and motors are visible. Even though the computation itself is mechanical, the Angle Computer has numerous electrical components. In the top half, the synchro transmitters provide electrical outputs of the azimuth and altitude. (A synchro transmitter uses fixed and moving coils to convert a shaft rotation angle into a three-wire electrical signal.) The large gear provides the altitude output. In the lower half, the longer cylinders are motors that move the Angle Computer's mechanisms. The motors are directed to rotate to a particular position through a feedback loop: synchro control transformers provide feedback to the external servo amplifiers that power the motors.

The back of the Angle Computer.

The back of the Angle Computer.

Partially disassembling the Angle Computer shows the complex gear trains inside, linking the synchros, motors, and the physical mechanism. The squat brass-colored units in the lower center are differential assemblies to add or subtract signals.15 One of the drive motors, a long cylinder, is visible in the lower right.

Gear trains inside the Angle Computer.

Gear trains inside the Angle Computer.

The Line of Position

Although the heading was the primary output from the Astro Compass, the Astro Compass could also help determine the location of the aircraft, using a technique called the celestial line of position. This technique was discovered in 1837 and became heavily used for navigating ships with a sextant. It could also be used onboard an aircraft.

To understand the line of position, suppose you go outside and find a star directly overhead. If you measure the altitude—the angle from the horizon to the star—with a sextant, the angle will be 90°, since it is overhead. Now, suppose you teleport 60 nautical miles away in any direction. The sextant will now show an altitude of 89° to the star, since a nautical mile is conveniently defined to match one minute of angle (one-sixtieth of a degree). Alternatively, if you measure an altitude of 89° to the star, you know you are 60 miles away from the original point under the star (called the sub-stellar point). Likewise, if you measure 88° to the star, you're on a circle with radius of 120 nautical miles around the sub-stellar point. If you measure, say, an altitude of 40°, you know you're on a very large circle with radius of 3000 miles around the sub-stellar point. So how does this help with navigation?

Suppose you're on a boat in the middle of the Pacific and you have a rough idea of where you are, say within 100 miles, but you want to find your exact position. Put a dot on the map where you think you are. Next, pick a star and work out what the angle to the star should be from your position. Measure the altitude with your sextant. Suppose you expected 50° but measured 51°. You now know that you're somewhere on a circle with radius of 2340 miles around the distant sub-stellar point. This doesn't seem very useful. However, since the angle was 1° more than expected, you know that the circle is 60 miles closer to that distant point than your estimated position. Moreover, since you have some idea of where you are, you know that you're on the part of this circle near your estimated location. And since you're looking at a small part of a big circle, you can approximate it by a line. So you can go back to your map, move 60 miles closer to the star from your estimated point, and draw a perpendicular line. This is your line of position, and you know that you're on this line (more or less).

Knowing that you're on a line isn't too useful, but you can repeat the process with a star in a different part of the sky. Maybe this time the angle is 2° smaller than expected, so you can draw a line of position 120 miles further away from your estimated position, in a different direction. The two lines cross, indicating a position where you (probably) are.16 Normally, you repeat the process with a third star, giving you three lines of position, providing a position and an idea of its accuracy.

The Line of Position display panel. Remember that the altitude here has nothing to do with the aircraft's altitude. From Kollsman MD-1 Automatic Astro Compass Manual.

The Line of Position display panel. Remember that the altitude here has nothing to do with the aircraft's altitude. From Kollsman MD-1 Automatic Astro Compass Manual.

The Astro Compass used the display above to show the star's azimuth and the distance in miles from the assumed location to the line of position, called the Altitude Intercept. With this information, the navigator could draw a line of position on the map. The navigator repeated the process with two more stars to get a location fix.17

Conclusion

The Angle Computer is a relic from a time when a mechanical analog computer was the best way to solve a problem, but the computer was also electrical. Although a mechanical apparatus solved the navigational triangle, it was moved into position by motors, and the output was transmitted electrically through wires. Moreover, the Angle Computer was driven by electronic amplifiers and feedback circuits that used both vacuum tubes and transistors.

The designers of the Astro Compass considered multiple approaches to computing the navigational triangle (details). The first was to use small electromechanical devices called resolvers that convert a physical rotation into sine and cosine values. By combining six resolvers with amplifiers, the altitude and azimuth could be obtained. The resolver solution was rejected as being too large and requiring a precision power supply. The second approach was to use a digital computer to determine the solution. This solution was rejected because in 1963, a digital computer was expensive, slow, and less reliable. The final approach, which was adopted, was to build a mechanical, physical model of the celestial sphere. Thus, the Angle Computer resided at the uneasy intersection of physical mechanisms, electrical circuits, vacuum tubes, and solid-state electronics, soon to be obsoleted by digital computers.

I plan to write more about the Astro Compass system. For updates, follow me on Bluesky (@righto.com), Mastodon (@kenshirriff@oldbytes.space), or RSS. Thanks to Richard for supplying the Astro Compass hardware.

AI statement: I didn't use AI to write this article (details).

Notes and references

  1. The Angle computer is labeled "Computer, Altitude-Azimuth, Automatic Astro Compass Type MD-1" and also has an "MD-3" sticker. Presumably, MD-3 is an upgrade of the MD-1. The system is also known as the "Kollsman KS-50-03 Astro Tracking System" (or maybe 50-08).

    There are a few documents available on the system, including Operating Instructions Handbook, Operating Instructions Pocket Manual, a technical article The Celestial Tracker as an Astro Compass, and a patent Celestial Data Computer. The web page PRC68: Automatic Astro Compass Type MD-1 has an extensive collection of links. CuriousMarc has a YouTube series on the Astro Tracker, starting with part 1. If you want to learn more about celestial navigation, this World War II training film describes the process in detail. 

  2. From the outside, the Angle Computer is an uninteresting black cylinder with connectors on the end. The cylinder was sealed with a soldered metal band that we removed with a blowtorch. It was pressurized with dry nitrogen through the fill valve in the center, a Schrader valve just like you'd find on a tire.

    The Angle Computer is packaged in a nondescript black cylinder.

    The Angle Computer is packaged in a nondescript black cylinder.

     

  3. The Astro Compass needed to know approximately where in the sky to find the star, in order to point its sensor in the right direction. The direction didn't need to be exact because the Astro Compass performed a spiral search pattern to find the star. This search pattern covered ±4° in bearing and ±2.5° in altitude. In comparison, the Moon is 0.5° wide, so it's a fairly large target area. 

  4. The diagram below shows the physical connections of the components of the Astro Compass.

    A physical diagram of the Astro Compass. The Angle Computer is called the Alt Az Computer in this diagram. Click this image (or any other) for a larger version.

    A physical diagram of the Astro Compass. The Angle Computer is called the Alt Az Computer in this diagram. Click this image (or any other) for a larger version.

    For a slightly different perspective, the diagram below shows the flow of data in the Astro Compass.

    A block diagram of the Astro Compass. The Angle Computer is called the Altitude Azimuth Computer in this diagram. From Automatic Astro Compass, Operating Instructions Handbook

    A block diagram of the Astro Compass. The Angle Computer is called the Altitude Azimuth Computer in this diagram. From Automatic Astro Compass, Operating Instructions Handbook

     

  5. The Astro Compass normally gets the latitude and longitude from the bombing computer. It normally gets the approximate heading (called the BATH, Best Available True Heading) from the magnetic compass. These values can all be entered manually if necessary. 

  6. Greenwich Mean Time is now mostly obsolete, replaced by UTC (Coordinated Universal Time). Greenwich Mean Time is based on when the sun reaches its highest point over Greenwich, England (longitude 0°). In solar time, the sun reaches its highest point at exactly noon. Unfortunately, the Earth's orbit is elliptical, so the length of a solar day varies throughout the year, by almost a minute. Since it's nice to have a constant 24-hour day, Mean Time was introduced. The idea is to average out the length of the day throughout the year, so each day is exactly 24 hours, even though the sun is no longer overhead exactly at noon. UTC is essentially the same as GMT, but defined by atomic clocks rather than the position of the sun over Greenwich. They can vary by up to 0.9 seconds, with a leap second added to UTC to keep them in sync. 

  7. The stars are all moving in different directions, but for most stars, the visible change in position (the proper motion) is very small. However, comparing the 1960 Air Almanac with the 2026 Air Almanac shows many of the listed stars have moved a degree or more due to the precession of the equinox. The change varies from star to star, both because the angular change depends on the star's location and because the SHA is exaggerated as you get closer to the poles (details). 

  8. Note that the azimuth is discontinuous at the zenith. To see this, imagine a star passing directly overhead: point your arm at the horizon and then swing it up until it is pointing straight up. To continue, you need to instantaneously spin around 180° and then lower your arm.

    The discontinuity in azimuth is important for the Angle Tracker, since it can't instantaneously change the azimuth by 180°. To avoid this problem, the Angle Computer has cams and microswitches to keep the altitude below 85°. (Otherwise, the azimuth arc will jam up instead of rotating smoothly.) The Astro Tracker also has declination limits of +90° and -47° and a lower altitude limit of -6°. The latitude is limited to the range between -2° and +90°; the system automatically switches hemispheres so both the North and South latitudes are usable. 

  9. One annoyance is that the length of a day is slightly different if you look at the sun (a solar day) versus looking at the stars (a sidereal day). A solar day is the standard 24-hour day, where the Earth rotates once and the sun returns to its previous position (approximately). But if you look at the stars, it takes a bit less time (23 hours, 56 minutes, and 4 seconds) for the stars to return to their previous position. The problem is that during one year, the Earth swings from one side of the sun to the other side and then back to the first side. From the perspective of the stars, this is an "extra" revolution, so there are 366.25 sidereal days in a year, compared to 365.25 solar days in a year. (I.e., it's an "off-by-one" error.) This makes each sidereal day slightly shorter. You can also think of this as the sun moving around the celestial sphere once per year, with the sun's position against the stars constantly changing. 

  10. Celestial navigation usually uses the sidereal hour angle (SHA) to measure the star's position relative to the meridian. Astronomers often use the right ascension instead. The right ascension is measured in the opposite direction and is measured in hours instead of degrees. They are related by the formula RA = (360° - SHA) / 15°

  11. The Earth's axis also wobbles on a cycle of 18.6 years because the Earth isn't exactly spherical. For many purposes, this wobble is averaged out and the "mean equinox" is used. The physical equinox is called the "apparent equinox". Greenwich Mean Sidereal Time (GMST) is measured with respect to the mean equinox, while Greenwich Apparent Sidereal Time (GAST) is measured with respect to the apparent equinox. The difference between the mean equinox and the apparent equinox is called the "equation of the equinoxes". The difference between the two equinoxes is small, less than about 1.1 seconds. 

  12. The angle of 90°-declination is sometimes called co-declination, the complement of declination, i.e., the angle down from the pole. Similarly, 90°-latitude is sometimes called co-latitude.

    The triangle can be solved using the spherical law of sines and the spherical law of cosines. An alternative, which makes more sense to me, is to find the answer by applying rotation matrices to change the coordinate system. Details are here, and Wikipedia has a convenient summary. 

  13. It may seem like there is a chicken-and-egg situation with navigation since you need to know your position in order to compute the star's altitude and azimuth, and you need to know the aircraft's heading to know which direction to point the telescope. In fact, you just need to know the approximate latitude, longitude, and heading (within 4°), and then the system generates a more accurate latitude, longitude, and heading. The process can be repeated until the values converge.

    Moreover, the Astro Compass is just one of the instruments that the navigator uses. The magnetic compass can provide an approximate heading, and dead reckoning or inertial navigation can provide an approximate location. The Astro Compass can use these to generate more accurate information, which in turn can improve the accuracy of the dead reckoning or inertial navigation. 

  14. Since the azimuth arc is a semicircle (180°), it might seem that the star pointer could move 180° in altitude along the azimuth arc. This wouldn't make sense, since the altitude ranges from 0° (horizon) to 90° (zenith). The explanation is that the slider is a quarter-circle (90°). Thus, the star position can only move 90° before the other end of the slider hits the end of the azimuth arc. 

  15. The differential gears are necessary because the axes aren't mechanically independent. For instance, as the latitude arm swings up and down, it also moves the declination and LHA drive shafts, causing unwanted rotation along these axes. The differentials subtract out the latitude motion from the declination and LHA inputs, so the resulting movements on each axis are independent. 

  16. Technically, two different circles on a sphere can cross at 0, 1, or 2 points. In practice, there will be two intersections, but one intersection is very far away and can be ignored. 

  17. Several factors complicated the navigator's job. By the time the navigator completed a measurement, the aircraft could have moved dozens of miles, so the navigator needed to adjust the lines of position based on this movement. But the navigator didn't know exactly how much the aircraft had moved, due to wind and other factors. Thus, even with the Astro Compass, the navigator needed to deal with uncertainty, cross-checking between different measurements to try to get the best results despite constant sources of error. 

Read the whole story
bogorad
8 hours ago
reply
Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain
Share this story
Delete
Next Page of Stories