NavList:

   

Reply

Robert wrote:

> Are previous almanacs available online now?

I don't know if this will work for what you want, but the US Naval
Observatory has an online almanac at:
http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/celnavtable.html

I just checked it and it seems to work for 01/01/1900, so hopefully
that goes back far enough for you.

--
GregR

--- Robert Gainer  wrote:

> Peter,
> Are previous almanacs available online now?
> Robert Gainer
>
> >
> > From: Peter Fogg 
> > Date: 2006/05/19 Fri PM 05:12:13 EDT
> > To: NAVIGATION-L@LISTSERV.WEBKAHUNA.COM
> > Subject: Re: Silicon Sea
> >
> > > Renee wrote:
> > > I hadn't even considered bringing the problems up to 2007.
> >
> > Anyone actually practising nav, or learning, can be expected to
> have access
> > to almanac data for the current year. While data for other periods
> is
> > certainly available, accessing it steepens that learning curve,
> already
> > steep enough, unnecessarily. Are you familiar with the nav problems
> included
> > in each issue of 'Ocean Navigator'? They are based on the format of
> a
> > nautical tale that may go back a century or more but the problem is
> always
> > posed so current year almanac data can be used for resolution.
> >
> > > I think that, with suitable almanac extracts...
> > We'd need to be careful about copyright. One idea is to present a
> page from,
> > say, the nautical almanac with relevant data circled, as an example
> of how
> > to extract info needed. Getting permission for that should be
> feasible, and
> > in any case that sort of quoting is specifically allowed for. We
> could
> > certainly supply the needed data as well for each problem, as well
> as
> > suggestions for alternative ways to access almanac information (eg;
> online).
> >
> > > I know creating the problems was a big project, and I assume that
> redoing
> > > them all would be another big project.
> >
> > Big enough, yes, but should be doable one leg at a time, which is
> how they
> > were created. Its going to be quite a learning experience for us as
> well.
> >
>

   

Reply