Timeline for How do you locate the "North Star"?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 20, 2016 at 12:49 | history | edited | WedaPashi♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 129 characters in body
|
| Feb 15, 2015 at 10:27 | comment | added | WedaPashi♦ | @Josh: No it isn't. | |
| Dec 2, 2014 at 4:59 | comment | added | Josh | Is the Cassiopeia also called M-45? | |
| Sep 30, 2014 at 8:02 | history | edited | WedaPashi♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 20 characters in body; added 15 characters in body
|
| Sep 9, 2014 at 14:06 | history | edited | WedaPashi♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Added an explanation about location the North from Southern Cross when one is deeper in South.
|
| Sep 9, 2014 at 12:03 | vote | accept | CommunityBot | moved from User.Id=2766 by developer User.Id=94 | |
| Sep 9, 2014 at 10:31 | comment | added | leonbloy | I don't find the explanation about the Southern Cross very clear. The standard rule -as I know it- is: extend the "long" axis of the cross, in the "foot" direction, four and a half times. csiro.au/helix/sciencemail/activities/images/CruxLength.jpg Further, the rule "go towards the ground" is not reliable, sometimes the cross can point upwards sydneyobservatory.com.au/2010/… | |
| Sep 9, 2014 at 5:02 | history | edited | WedaPashi♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 2 characters in body
|
| Sep 9, 2014 at 5:01 | comment | added | WedaPashi♦ | @orangejewelweed: As Ben rightly said just above, that if you are looking that degree of accuracy, you should probably have a compass and other instruments. Unless you are snipping/bombarding (:D) someone out of sight, you could afford to err upto 5 degrees in a direction. | |
| Sep 8, 2014 at 22:23 | comment | added | user2169 | @orangejewelweed: No eyeball technique using the stars is going to give you the kind of high-precision heading you could get from a properly adjusted magnetic compass. For example, if you have a map that shows you want to go 134 degrees east of north, locating Polaris by eye is only going to give you a rough idea of what direction that is. There are more sophisticated celestial navigation techniques, but they require instruments and possibly tables. | |
| Sep 8, 2014 at 22:16 | comment | added | user2169 | Nice answer. From my latitude in Los Angeles, Cassiopeia is often visible when the big dipper is not. Polaris is not especially bright, so in big, light-polluted cities like mine, one can often use Cassiopeia to find north even if Polaris is too dim to see. | |
| Sep 8, 2014 at 20:03 | comment | added | orangejewelweed | Up here in NE USA (42.5 N latitude) Orion is typically a winter constellation. I have been seeing it lately just before sunrise. My question is about the precision of using Orion to find North. With Polaris, it almost precisely above the north pole, so if you can use it for quite accurate navigation. It seems that using the belt of Orion one could find North in a general but not precise way. I am looking for clarification to see if that is accurate. | |
| Sep 8, 2014 at 14:37 | comment | added | WedaPashi♦ | @orangejewelweed: If I am on Equator, the Orion's Belt is my best bet for finding the North. But depending upon where you are, Orion's Constellation may or may not be visible. On Equator its visible all the time, but in India, I usually start seeing the Orion from around 7.30 pm, when I wake up at 2.00 am, its gone. | |
| Sep 8, 2014 at 14:31 | comment | added | orangejewelweed | Does the Orion/Equatorial method give a less precise direction for North than finding Polaris? It seems to indicate a general direction, which is often good enough, rather than the exact direction. | |
| Sep 8, 2014 at 14:15 | history | answered | WedaPashi♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
