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: Silicon Sea Leg 88 questions
    From: Peter Fogg
    Date: 2004 Feb 4, 16:18 +1100

    Renee Mattie wrote
    > I also have (for
    > Long 153d 54.8' W
    > LAT   038d 46.1' N
    > 2002 Sep 9 22:12:34 UT)
    > GHA 153d 50.'
    > DEC 005d 06.8'
    > Hc 055d 20.7'
    > Azimuth 179.9d
    > >From the National Observatory website.
    > Which gives me
    > Intercept 22.8 nm AWAY
    > The big difference here is DEC
     Renee, there seem to be 2 inconsistancies, the DR latitude which you stated
    earlier as
    >5) arrive at DR #2 39d46.1'N 153d54.8'W, at 22:12:34 UT,
    and the date, 39 hours after the 9 Sep DR. The declination is accurate for
    the 9 Sep.
    > I do not have another reference for GHA & DEC
    > for 2002, so I put my faith in the national observatory.
    > Where did you get your data?  Which do you trust?
    > I've seen several good suggestions in the DIY plotting charts
    > thread that sprang up from my questions.  Do you have more?
    One answer to both:
    I use a book called 'The Complete On-Board Celestial Navigator'
    It has 5 years of almanac data and not only blank plotting sheets but worked
    out examples showing how to reduce a sight and plot it,
    and much else besides.
    Celestaire may stock it http://www.celestaire.com/
    or you can find it at Amazon, this link is fairly long
    but leads to more information, reviews, etc.
    Just by the way,
    > For part 5 of Leg 88, we are within a 10th of a minute.
    > Hs 054d 48.1'
    > IC -000d 02.5'
    > Dip -000d -3.0'
    > Ha  054d 42.6'
    > Ac  000d 15.3'
    > Ho 054d 57.9'
    One value, the altitude correction, is more accurate than my approximation,
    but your dip correction is the other way around.
    For dip one solution is to use a simple table, where -3' applies to all
    heights of eye between 6 and 13 feet.
    Another is the formula: square root of height of eye x .97 (for feet) or
    1.76 (for metres)
    So here with height eye of 9 feet: 3 x .97 = 2.91
    > You said that you wanted to check your results against the "official"
    > answers.  As far as I can tell, they have not been published.
    > Dan Hogan has stated that he currently has higher priorities.
    Well, that's sad news. Perhaps they'll turn up in the fullness of time.
    We live in hope.

    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