Welcome to the NavList Message Boards.


A Community Devoted to the Preservation and Practice of Celestial Navigation and Other Methods of Traditional Wayfinding

Compose Your Message

Add Images & Files
    Re: Moon Parallax, Math Trivia (was Re: venus)
    From: George Huxtable
    Date: 2004 Oct 21, 00:42 +0100

    I think we need to take this question of the fine-print of the parallax
    correction somewhat further, if there isn't too much objection from
    non-purists. We are discussing tiny errors here, but there's all the
    difference between a tiny error and an exact solution.
    There are two problems to solve.
    1. deducing what the true altitude TA would be, knowing the observed
    altitude OA and calculating the parallax. This is the normal procedure when
    clearing a lunar distance, or any other Moon observation.
    The exact expression for this can be easily deduced: see Smart, "Textbook
    of spherical astronomy" chapter IX (parallax), eq 18, to be-
    TA =  OA + arc-sine ( (a/r) cos OA)    (eq. 1a)
    A CLOSE APPROXIMATION to this, for small angles (and we're talking about 1
    degree or less)
    TA = OA + (a/r) cos OA, where the angle [(a/r) cos OA] has to be expressed
    in radians
    This can be written more conveniently as
    TA = OA + HP cos OA     (eq. 1b)
     where the constant terms are gathered into the quantity HP, horizontal
    parallax, the parallax at zero observed altitude.
    But remember, this is only an approximation; the exact answer calls for the
    use of arc-sine above.
    2. Deducing what the observed altitude OA would have been if it had been
    measured, knowing the true altitude TA and calculating the parallax. This
    is the reverse problem, which is called in when clearing a lunar and the
    Moon's altitude has not been measured.
    In this case, the exact solution appears to me to be as I gave it in an
    earlier posting-
    OA =  TA - atn ( cos TA / ( (r/a) - sin TA))       (eq. 2)
    Frank wrote-
    >The original direct parallax equation is
    >  OA = TA - HP cos OA .
    >Can you invert this and solve for OA in some "closed-form" equation? ....No.
    Where has Frank taken this equation from? Can he justify it as exact?
    It seems to me that the inexactitude is not in the arctan solution to the
    inverse problem 2, but in Frank's chosen expression for the direct problem
    Try putting in some numbers.
    Assume HP = 55 minutes. or .91666666667 degrees
    then a/r = .01599816897
    If we take OA as 45 deg then using eq. 1a, TA is 45.64816739
    Putting those values of TA and (a/r) into eq. 2 brings us back exactly to
    OA = 45.00000000, just as it should.
    But if we use 1b, starting at OA = 45, we calculate TA = 45.64815357
    and putting that into eq.2 takes is back to
    OA = 44.99998602, marginally different from the starting point.
    So the question is whether eq. 1a or eq. 1b is an exact solution to problem
    1. If it's 1a, then eq.2 is an exact solution to the reverse problem.
    Frank's argument holds only if eq. 1b is the exact solution. Can he justify
    contact George Huxtable by email at george@huxtable.u-net.com, by phone at
    01865 820222 (from outside UK, +44 1865 820222), or by mail at 1 Sandy
    Lane, Southmoor, Abingdon, Oxon OX13 5HX, UK.

    Browse Files

    Drop Files


    What is NavList?

    Join NavList

    (please, no nicknames or handles)
    Do you want to receive all group messages by email?
    Yes No

    You can also join by posting. Your first on-topic post automatically makes you a member.

    Posting Code

    Enter the email address associated with your NavList messages. Your posting code will be emailed to you immediately.

    Email Settings

    Posting Code:

    Custom Index

    Start date: (yyyymm dd)
    End date: (yyyymm dd)

    Visit this site
    Visit this site
    Visit this site
    Visit this site
    Visit this site
    Visit this site