NavList:

   

Reply

>  -----Original Message-----
> From:         Royer, Doug
> Sent: Monday, May 12, 2003 12:39
> To:   'navigation-l@listserv.webkahuna,com'
> Subject:      05-11 raw lunar data
>
> High fog prevented any attempt on 05-10 even though the Moon could be
> seen.Even useing the polarizing shade on the sextant the edges of the
> bodies were fuzzy.I learned one important lesson during this.Don't attempt
> it when fatigued.I have some confidence in the Moon-Jupiter distances but
> fatigue and vessel movement reduces my confidence in the Moon-Spica
> distances.I haven't had a chance to work the calculations of the distances
> yet but will in the next day.Here is the raw data of the observations.
> At the top of each hours attempts I took observations of the 2 bodies to
> be used in the distance measurement and reduced them to get a 2 LOP pos to
> check against the GPS pos.I had to backsight Jupiter's altitudes because
> the island blocked the horizon.All Moon hs are L.L.In the Moon-Jupiter
> distances the Moon's S.D. will be added.In the Moon-Spica distances the
> S.D. will be subtracted.Moon's H.P. is 59.6' for Jupiter shots and 59.7'
> for Spica.All times are zt taken from a hack and stop-watch.I cheated and
> set the watch 05-10 and it's decay is -0.2 sec. per day.Ic = +0.1', Ht. =
> 11 ft., 52*F, 29.25 in Hg
> 2000 + 2200 hrs. gps pos. = 34*04.7'N  120*23.3'W
> 2000 2 lop = 34*04.9'N   120*22.8'W
> 2200 2 lop = 34*03.2'N   120*22.2'W
> alts.
> 201106 Moon hs = 55*50.3'
> 201214 Jup. Bhs=116*43.1'  hs = 63*16.9'
> distances
> 201600  44*51.0
> 201900  44*51.6'
> 202053  44*53.2'
> 202309  44*55.6'
> 202420  44*56.4'
> 202722  44*57.6'
>  alts
> 202916 Jup. Bhs=119*51.9'  hs = 60*08.1'
> 203019 Moon hs = 57*59.8'
> 220944 Moon hs = 60*08.2'
> 221040 Spica hs = 42*48.7'
> distances
> 223402  28*36.8'
> 223539  28*36.4'
> 223654  28*35.2'
> 223814  28*33.6'
> 223923  28*35.0'
> 224100  28*33.4'
> alts
> 224113 Spica hs = 44*21.9'
> 224222 Moon hs = 57*12.8'
> I was doing this alone and rushing to measure and record the angles and
> mistakes were made especially on the Spica observations.
>
>
>

   

Reply