Inertial Guidance Systems don't rely on gravity and they can work in 3D space - why would you claim otherwise?
Here is the Inertial Measurement Unit of the Apollo CM:
Apollo Inertial Measurement Unit | | Apollo primary guidance, navigation, and control system (PGNCS): Inertial measurement unit
The IMU was gimbaled on three axes. The innermost part, the stable member (SM), was a 6-inch beryllium cube, with three gyroscopes and three accelerometers mounted in it. Feedback loops used signals from the gyroscopes by way of the resolvers to control motors at each axis. This servo system kept the stable member fixed with respect to inertial space. Signals from the accelerometers were then integrated to keep track of the spacecraft's velocity and position. The IMU was derived from the guidance system developed by Draper for the Polaris missile.
Inertial guidance systems are not perfect and Apollo system drifted about one milliradian per hour. Thus it was necessary to realign the inertial platform periodically by sighting on stars. |
Well, some idiots (http://www.cleonis.nl/physics/phys256/inertial_space.php ) believe that Inertial space refers to the background reference that is provided by the phenomenon of inertia. Inertia is opposition to change of velocity (sic), that is: change of velocity with respect to the background, the background that all physical processes are embedded in. The Inertial guidance systems that are used in navigation and in guidance of missiles work by detecting acceleration and rotation with respect to inertial space.
If you think
Cleonis, who writes for Wikipedia, is an
idiot then you've proven how little you know on a topic vital to modern navigation on Earth and in Space.
Inertia is, on the other hand, a property of matter by which it continues in its existing state of rest or uniform motion in a straight line, unless that state is changed by an external force.
There is no "on the other hand"!
Inertial space simply describes a "space" that is not accelerating nor subject to gravitation - another "acceleration" under GR and "Inertia" is "a property of matter". In the case of linear motion "inertia" is simply mass!
Confusing, isn't it?
No, it's not the slightest bit confusing to anyone with the slightest understanding of physics - but I guess that cuts you out because you seem to understand nothing.
This is one reason nobody wins my Challenge!
No! One reason nobody is allowed to win your Challenge is that you would just dismiss any correct entry as fake because you pea-brain would be completely unable to comprehend it.
You even claim the solution provided by NASA, that resulted in six successful lunar landings as fake.
You cannot navigate in space to the Moon or Mars, etc.
Incorrect, of course a spacecraft can be navigated to the Moon, Venus, Mercury, Mars, a particular asteroid, Jupiter, Saturn etc etc!
Many have been, from the early Russian and American lunar fly-bys, hard and soft-landings.