NavList:
A Community Devoted to the Preservation and Practice of Celestial Navigation and Other Methods of Traditional Wayfinding
Re: Out of Date Almanac
From: Greg Rudzinski
Date: 2009 Dec 8, 09:35 -0800
From: Greg Rudzinski
Date: 2009 Dec 8, 09:35 -0800
Hewitt, The Naval Observator is showing an Aries GHA difference of 2.1' for 2006 vs. 2010. Kobles figures are based on the years 2000 to 2003 I think. Greg On Dec 8, 9:23�am, Hewitt Schlerethwrote: > Is the +2.1' 4-year correction to GHA Aries mentioned by Gary based on > new astronomical work? I've always used +1.84'. Kolbe's long-term > almanac does also. �-Hewitt > > On 12/8/09, Greg Rudzinski wrote: > > > Thanks Gary and Frank, > > > �I will be using my 2006 Nautical Almanac for 2010 Sun observations > > �with no corrections and be within .5 MOA (good enough). For stars the > > �plan is to photo copy the online Nautical Almanac for > > �1/1/10,3/1/10,6/1/10,9/1/10 and use the star SHA and declinations plus > > �a 2.1 minute GHA aries correction which should get me within .5 MOA > > �(good enough). Looks like I'm out of luck for the Moon and Planets > > �though. Any ideas on how to compensate the Nautical Almanac Polaris > > �table ? > > > �Greg > > > �On Dec 7, 5:10 pm, Greg Rudzinski wrote: > > �> Any opinions on using a Nautical Almanac that is four years out of > > �> date? I bring this up because there are old almanacs available on > > �> Amazon.com from $2 to $10. �New Nautical Almanacs have gotten > > �> expensive so my plan is to use a 2006 for the upcoming year 2010. > > > �-- > > �NavList message boards:www.fer3.com/arc > > �Or post by email to: NavList@fer3.com > > �To , email NavList+@fer3.com -- NavList message boards: www.fer3.com/arc Or post by email to: NavList@fer3.com To , email NavList+@fer3.com