|
|
|
|
|||||
|
||||||
From: Courtney Thomas (no email)
Date: Tue May 31 2005 - 10:19:39 EDT
As one who has struggled with a plethora of publications that purport to
convey the celnav gospel, I'd like to suggest a group project of
composing a "minimal" narrative of the essentials of celestial
navigation that would at least do the following, though additions are
welcomed as the group sees fit, of course, as I'm sure I'm not even
sufficiently proficient to provide a satisfactory outline, and therefore
only hope to induce the competent to collaborate:
Also assuming Godelian proficiency unnecessary :-) and hoping an
included bibliography will gratify those whose requirements are
unsatisfied by the final group consensus, as well as those merely more
curious, I submit the following as starting suggestions:
1-a summary narrative - to fully setout a statement of the problem and
it's currently regarded state of the art solution, omitting all math and
drawings. This might, for example, omit considerations such as sextants
and their use, historical considerations, etc., i.e. adhere only to a
conceptual basis, ignoring the procedural, hence avoiding the conflation
and inflation of other authors.
2-definitions - only that necessary to familiarize a novice
with the terminology
3-math & science axioms & drawings - the plane geometry, trigonometry,
astronomy, physics, etc. deemed indispensible, with a suitable
bibliography
4-a summary outline - sort of a table of contents writ large, setting
out a celnav process
5-for each section in #4, a brief narrative of motivation to textually
succeed each topic - [To maintain reader clarity, for example, for a
section on, say, the intercept method, to describe HOW it fits into the
overall scheme and WHY it is valid.]
6-a summary with example(s) - a final assembly... embodying the initial
summary, described in #1, but utilizing the actual nuts&bolts contained
in #s 2 & 3, with nothing more included
[Goal Statement: to layout a minimal, though complete, celnav procedure
for a novice without omitting unity, while avoiding concision that
leaves confusion and wonderment.]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Please leave me out of any debate on the desirability and feasibility.
If you think it undesirable or infeasible, ignore this suggestion, else
I thank you for your contribution to it's realization, as will all those
who follow.
Courtney Thomas
|