NavList:
A Community Devoted to the Preservation and Practice of Celestial Navigation and Other Methods of Traditional Wayfinding
Re: Accuracy of ephemeris
From: Ken Muldrew
Date: 2017 Oct 17, 06:38 -0600
--
From: Ken Muldrew
Date: 2017 Oct 17, 06:38 -0600
I used Skyfield to write a program to make Maskelyne-style almanacs for doing lunars the way a ca. 1800 navigator might do them. The code is sloppy but if you would like to see it then just ask and I'll send you a copy. I'll attach a sample month so you can see the output (Greenwich apparent time and days starting at noon are used).
Ken Muldrew.
On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 12:58 AM, Bill Lionheart <NoReply_Lionheart@fer3.com> wrote:
Thanks Ken. I asked an astrophysicist and he confirmed JPL was the gold standard. I will look at the python interface.BillOn 17 October 2017 at 02:48, Ken Muldrew <NoReply_Muldrew@fer3.com> wrote:If you use Skyfield for python then you can load the JPL ephemeris. In fact, you can load several different versions of JPL's ephemerides depending on your needs. Here are some of them from the docs:
Ephemeris Size Years Issued de405.bsp 63 MB 1600 to 2200 May 1997 de406.bsp 287 MB −3000 to 3000 May 1997 de421.bsp 17 MB 1900 to 2050 February 2008 de422.bsp 623 MB −3000 to 3000 September 2009 de430.bsp 128 MB 1550 to 2650 February 2010 jup310.bsp 932 MB 1900 to 2100 December 2013 It's pretty easy to build an almanac generator with this package although you do have to spend some time thinking about time to get it right.Ken Muldrew.On 2017-10-16, at 7:33 AM, Bill Lionheart wrote:I have been using the python ephem package for ephemeris and it is based on code from Xephem, with a discussion of accuracy here http://www.clearskyinstitute.com/xephem/ I have seen other discussions of accuracy of ephemeris software on NavList and I am sorry if this has been covered before 1) Where can I find an analysis of the effect of errors on the intercept method? Hence the answer to the question "How accurate does ephemeris need to be for celestial navigation?" . I know we are limited by time and angular resolution in taking sights but we can average over a series of sights to reduce this error, but after errors in reading the sextant and chronometer is the next biggest error going to be variations in the atmosphere? Suppose we are using celestial navigation at a fixed point on land and we can average over different atmospheric conditions. 2) Is there a "gold standard" ephemeris used in astronomy? It strikes me in meteorology the gold standard must be to check predictions with observations. Presumably there are observatories making high precision measurements with minimal errors (for example when objects are near the zenith to reduce refractions). -- Professor of Applied Mathematics University of Manchester http://www.maths.manchester.ac.uk/bl
--Professor of Applied Mathematics
University of Manchester
http://www.maths.manchester.ac.uk/bl
\----------------------------+---------------------------------+ o_,
O_/ \ Ken Muldrew, PhD | Voice: (403) 226-6222 | <\__/7
<\__ \ Programming/Electrical| Cell: (---) too-poor | | /
"\ L | Arbourealis RDC ltd. | kbmuldrew@gmail.com | / /
< +-----------------------+---------------------------------+ / /
Morning coffee recapitulate phylogeny L/
O_/ \ Ken Muldrew, PhD | Voice: (403) 226-6222 | <\__/7
<\__ \ Programming/Electrical| Cell: (---) too-poor | | /
"\ L | Arbourealis RDC ltd. | kbmuldrew@gmail.com | / /
< +-----------------------+---------------------------------+ / /
Morning coffee recapitulate phylogeny L/
File: 140366.oct2017.pdf