NavList:
A Community Devoted to the Preservation and Practice of Celestial Navigation and Other Methods of Traditional Wayfinding
Re: A celestial navigation problem
From: Mike Burkes
Date: 2011 Nov 30, 08:12 -0800
From: Mike Burkes
Date: 2011 Nov 30, 08:12 -0800
Hi GL thanks for reply the 45 in site 2 was a typo error and my average was correct at 18-07-46. Also I wonder why after the round of 12 sites equal altitudes were not used as per some nav texts. I thought the more equal alt pairs you have,especially the ones that result in close LANS, the more accurate your LAN. I realize 5-8 do not help but 9-12 could have been treated as equal alts,i.e., set the sextant to the AM alts. Sorry to be-labor the point and thanks for input.
Mike Burkes
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2011 19:23:17 -0800
From: garylapook@pacbell.net
Subject: [NavList] Re: A celestial navigation problem
To: NavList@fer3.com
Mike Burkes
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2011 19:23:17 -0800
From: garylapook@pacbell.net
Subject: [NavList] Re: A celestial navigation problem
To: NavList@fer3.com
For figuring the time of LAN you only look at the two sights that have the exactly the same altitude, sights 2 and 11. All the sights that have the same altitude around LAN, sights 5-8 don't help. If you are faster with the sextant you could have had a lot more sights with that altitude. For figuring LAN you take the two sights that have the exact same altitude and that are spaced as far apart as possible. It looks like you misread the time for sight 2, you put 18-02-45 and the correct time is 18-02-05, the average is 18-07-46. Plus ZD minus WE makes the GMT of LAN 22-07-41. Since your time is 4 seconds too soon your longitude is one minute to far to the east so add one minute to your answer and you have it. gl --- On Mon, 11/28/11, Mike Burkes <m_burkes@msn.com> wrote:
|