I'm confused, Mark.
Which, if either, is the different way you would do it if you were to
start over?
Christopher
Mark Wagner wrote:
> 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
>
>