NavList:

   

Reply

At 05:23 AM 2/21/2008, you wrote:

>The Earth is nearly a sphere, but not quite. Celestial navigation, as
>commonly practiced, has no issues with the fact that the Earth isn't quite
>round. The flattening is only one part in about 300.
>
>But if the Earth were a cube, instead of a sphere?? Then celestial
>navigation wouldn't work at all --on every face of this imaginary
>cube-shaped planet, the altitudes of key stars would be constant. One could
>not determine position on a "cubic planet" by measuring the stars. So what
>"shape" and what "topology" makes celestial navigation on a planetary
>surface possible? On a sphere, it works; on a cube, it doesn't. Could you
>shoot the stars on Saturn's moon Hyperion, with its famously non-spherical
>shape? If celestial's possible on some spheroidal body, is there any
>downside to celestial navigation on a planet that's flattened at the poles?

Isn't it the vertical (gravity vector)  that makes celestial possible? I
guess you'd have to toss your horizon based sextant over board and use an
aircraft bubble sextant. :-)

I have wondered if there are any points on Earth were there exist parallel
gravity vectors near such structures as ocean trenches or high isolated
mountains.  If so, there would be multiple locations with equal
latitude/longitude locations (as determined by celestial navigation)
separated by some non zero distance.

>Just some food for thought...
>
>  -FER


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to NavList@fer3.com
To , send email to NavList-@fer3.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

   

Reply