Thank you. It is n't listed as one of the 57 navigational stars. Another strange thing is that it isn't the dimmest star from 57. And its almost nailed position should kind of suggest it as a default star for intercept method. I hope it has nothing to do with any superstitions or alike. I worked on several problems concerning intercept and Polaris was listed among suggested stars for LOPS quite often. Majority of problems ( book) are around 1993 and there was no way to find Polaris SHA and declination.
Another thing is that azimuth angle for Polaris usually within .1 of degree from True North. Which make LOP just a perpendicular to Lat. line ( using universal plotting sheet).
Anyway, I'm just curious was Polaris used for intercept method in real conditions years ago? If yes, how?
Rumata,
Welcome aboard!
It's a further curiosity to notice on the USNO's Navigational Star Chart that Polaris, while it's listed with a general SHA of about 328° that there isn't a number next to it which indicates, I assume, that it's not included as one of the 57 navigational stars.
Get the Navigational Star Chart here- Navigational Star Chart
Anyone have other ideas about this?
Ed
[/quote]
Another thing is that azimuth angle for Polaris usually within .1 of degree from True North. Which make LOP just a perpendicular to Lat. line ( using universal plotting sheet).
Anyway, I'm just curious was Polaris used for intercept method in real conditions years ago? If yes, how?
Rumata,
Welcome aboard!
It's a further curiosity to notice on the USNO's Navigational Star Chart that Polaris, while it's listed with a general SHA of about 328° that there isn't a number next to it which indicates, I assume, that it's not included as one of the 57 navigational stars.
Get the Navigational Star Chart here- Navigational Star Chart
Anyone have other ideas about this?
Ed
[/quote]