NavList:
A Community Devoted to the Preservation and Practice of Celestial Navigation and Other Methods of Traditional Wayfinding
Re: Lunar distance by photography
From: Peter Monta
Date: 2024 Jun 24, 17:43 +0000
From: Peter Monta
Date: 2024 Jun 24, 17:43 +0000
Paul Hirose writes:
One complication not mentioned is the shape of the Moon's limb.
Indeed. It is also flattened by refraction to the tune of several arcseconds even at moderate zenith distance (say 60 degrees). Not a huge problem if the entire limb were available, but it never is, so curve-fitting the limb must be alert to bias from the single available limb (either East or West).
I considered trying to use the Earthshine with crescent Moons, but it was just too noisy.
Cheers,
Peter
On Saturday, June 22nd, 2024 at 7:15 PM, NavList Community <NavList@fer3.com> wrote:
Lunar distance by photography
From: Paul Hirose
Date: 2024 Jun 22, 12:43 -0700Speaking of photographic lunar distance observations, one method is described in this 1893 paper: "On photography as applied to obtain an instantaneous record of lunar distances for determinations of longitude," U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey annual report for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1893 (part 2), appendix no. 4, page 117 (126 in the PDF). https://libguides.library.noaa.gov/coast-geodetic-survey/annual-reports The method uses several short exposures of the Moon and a long exposure of the star field, all on the same photographic plate. No special camera is required. Since the Moon is photographed separately from the stars, the camera settings can be optimized for each. I don't fully understand the method, but it seems to me some simplifications are possible nowadays. For instance, no plate measuring machine is needed. A simple utility such as Windows Paint can get xy pixel coordinates. One complication not mentioned is the shape of the Moon's limb. I think it's slightly elliptical in a photo (even if the lens has no distortion) when the Moon is not on the optical axis. That occurs because the cone of rays forms an ellipse on the image plane when the cone is not perpendicular. In seems non-intuitive (wouldn't you notice in a photo with the Moon off-center?) and I haven't investigated. But I think this issue was discussed in another old photographic longitude article (also by Runge?). I may have mentioned it here years ago. There was a discussion of photographic lunars in December 2009, recorded in the archives, but I haven't had time to look at it. -- Paul Hirose sofajpl.com