Re: Problems with J002E3 elements

From: Tony Beresford (
Date: Sat Mar 29 2003 - 20:18:05 EST

  • Next message: paul: "8305 obs 30mar ut"

    At 09:01 30/03/03, Ed Davies wrote:
    >First RA/Dec pair is ICRF/J2000.0 with which I'm quite happy.  Second is
    >"a-apparent".  What does this mean and why is it different?  I turned off 
    >refraction correction so the difference is not just that.  (Refraction 
    >correction seemed a bit pointless with 6000+km of rock in the way. :-)  
    >Is it due to nutation, etc: i.e., relative to the ITRF (terrestrial
    >reference frame) rather than celestial?
    >I forwarded John Holtz's message to somebody with a decent tele-
    >scope and a web-cam modded for long exposures a few days ago when it
    >looked possible that a front might clear the air here in south eastern
    >England but actually we've gone from high pressure haze to quite 
    >heavy mist so I'm not too hopeful of him getting any piccies.
    Ed, the apparent positions are corrected for aberration and nutation.
    I suspect your friend with the webcam will have too much noise in the
    exposure long enough to get faint enough  to image J002E3
    Tony Beresford
    To unsubscribe from SeeSat-L, send a message with 'unsubscribe'
    in the SUBJECT to
    List archived at

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Mar 29 2003 - 20:22:27 EST