NavList:

Robert,

One reason offered is that false horizons are common with the moon at 
dark (and twilight?), obviously, when not using an artificial 
horizon.  Using your artificial horizon, do you see any differences 
between day moon shots and evening or night shots.  Day moon shots 
give a supplemental LOP to sun shots.

I've often been pleased with day or very early evening moon shots 
with an artificial horizon (external, a Davis, not a built-in one).

Fred

On Aug 17, 2006, at 10:19 PM, Robert Eno wrote:

> Gentlemen
>
> I'd like to throw this one out to the wolves.......er' list 
> members, and see what comes back.
>
> Many navigation texts discuss what was apparently an "old sailor's 
> tale" about the inaccuracy of moon observations. The story goes 
> that in the old days, many navigators avoided moon shots because 
> the believed that moon observations yield inaccurate LOPs; a belief 
> which persists to this day in some circles. The texts go on to say 
> that moon shots are perfectly accurate; no less so than any other 
> body that one can observe; that with current correction tables, 
> moon observations should yield results every bit as accurate as any 
> other observations.
>
> Notwithstanding the pronouncements of navigators who have forgotten 
> more than I will ever know, it has been my experience -- after 
> thousands of observations of stars, planets, the sun and the moon, 
> that moon shots do tend to yield results that are simply not on the 
> money. I have tried to ignore this and embrace what the textbooks 
> say about how moon shots are accurate, but the theory just doesn't 
> pan out for me personally. I am one of those navigators who only 
> uses the moon as a last resort because I fully expect (and am 
> seldom wrong) that I will be wonky LOPs.
>
> Case in point: the other night, I took the opportunity to take some 
> star and moon shots. Haven't seen the former since last April and 
> while the return of the stars also signals the imminent return of 
> old man winter in my part of the world, I nevertheless welcome the 
> return of my old friends.
>
> To carry on, I took four observations of the moon and four of Vega 
> (from a known position) using my Plath Bubble attachment.  As is my 
> practice, when observing from a static platform, I averaged out the 
> results of the sights, all of which were taken within minutes of 
> each other.
>
> The average result for the moon shots was 3.9 minutes of arc error, 
> while the results from Vega were only 1.3 minutes of arc error. To 
> add insult to injury, the Vega shots were extremely difficult to 
> take because the illumination system in the Plath, even at its 
> dimmest, tends to all but wash out stars. The moon shot was a 
> breeze but the results were pathetic. I should add that clouds were 
> moving in at the time. Could clouds have an effect on refraction?
>
> Ok, Ok, I know that a bubble attachment is simply not as reliable 
> as a true horizon and that 8 observations do not constitute a 
> statistically-correct defence to support my assertion about the 
> inaccuracy of moon shots. I merely presented these data to 
> illustrate what has been my experience since I first picked up a 
> sextant 23 years ago. It is more often than not, the same for me: 
> to borrow from the modern pop culture vernacular: moon shots simply 
> suck. At least for me.
>
> So what gives?  Have I been cultivating and reinforcing an as yet 
> unknown bad habit vis a vis moon observations all of these years?  
> If so, why would this not be the case for the sun, stars and planets?
>
> Is there anyone else out there besides me who simply does not get 
> good results from moon observations?
>
> Is this all in my head??
>
> Robert
>
>
>
> >


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