At 1/29/2004, you wrote:
>I should have said "strict RA order" or "naive RA order". Maybe I'm
>the only one dumb enough to have actually done this. I'm sure you
>really do them in what might be called "sophisticated RA order", which
>takes into account relative locality and also doing the more Southern
>ones first, because they will be gone sooner.
>
>The problem with strict RA order, which became obvious to me only after
>my initial rookie year(s) is that you keep bouncing wildly North to
>South, with the resulting telescope movements, chart page flipping,
>etc. Not to mention losing the leverage of having the immediate local
>"knowledge" of the area you've just hopped around. It finally dawned
>on me after about the 10th time that I went from object A to B to C and
>found out that objects A and B were in the same field of view, but
>object C was 90 degrees away from them! It takes some people longer
>than others to learn these lessons, I guess.
Oh.... yes.... that is right. I pick out a 2 hour RA window, then sort
them north to south.
On my H2500, they are sorted by diminishing mag then RA, within
constellations. I would do it differently if I were to start over.
Mark