NavList:

   

Reply

Yep, I agree with all of this.

. Its cetrtainly not fair of me to moan about what is put up when that is
the only show on offer, so I would encourage everyone to contribute to the
List whatever navigationally related topic is of interest to you, after all
the List is only our combined contributions. Please don't hold back because
you think your topic is only for 'newbies' or for fear of exposing your
ignorance, we were all beginners at some stage and had to learn somehow.

And I love hearing about the lunerians - from a respectable distance!

----- Original Message -----
From: "Fred Hebard" 
To: 
Sent: Friday, September 05, 2003 12:30 PM
Subject: Re: Principles and Being Practical


> I think there needs to be balance here.  The nitpickers are the ones
> who have given us lunars.  They also have given us ways of checking the
> accuracy of sextants, a service not offered any more in the U.S., as
> best as I can tell; this is the reason for the quest for absolute
> accuracy on land.  If you drop you Tamaya Spica, you'll need to check
> it yourself or buy a new one.
>
> I suppose one could argue that lunars are not necessary because one can
> carry a quartz watch and tune into time signals on the radio.  By the
> same token, sextants are not needed; just carry a GPS.  Or just smell
> your way across the ocean like Columbus.
>
> The threads about gravitational anomalies caused a lot of traffic when
> the list was quiescent, which is evidence of interest.  There was a
> real, practical question being addressed: would there be a significant
> fuel saving in routing around the anomalies?  Unfortunately, most of us
> were not well versed enough in physics to understand the answer the
> first time it was given, which must have been vexing to the person
> trying to educate us.
>
> I'm sure Peter Fogg was irked that George Huxtable invoked his name in
> pointing out a problem with Peter Bennett's azimuth tables for azimuths
> near 90 and 180 degrees, or whatever.  That was unnecessary.  George is
> rather insensitive, and can be rather a brute, and is certainly
> intimidating.  But George has been right almost every time he's raised
> a question with somebody, and usually it hasn't been some minor effect
> such as a non-spherical earth.  I rather prize his input, and attempt
> to find humor in his intimidation.  He really does seem to be a
> good-natured soul.
>
> I can well see, though, that list members would be discouraged from
> posting and participating, because George is so intimidating and
> because land-locked, semi-academics such as myself raise stupid
> questions.  I hope they can overcome their trepidation and continue
> posting.
>
> Fred
>

   

Reply