|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
recovered F-1 engines - which mission?
Jan Philips wrote:
Greg (Strider) Moore wrote: And if they're actually accurate. i.e. we don't know the CEP. What is CEP? Circular error probable en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_error_probable |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
recovered F-1 engines - which mission?
"Greg (Strider) Moore" wrote in message
m... "Rick Jones" wrote in message ... Jan Philips wrote: On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 11:44:53 -0000, "GordonD" wrote: "Apollo - The Definitive Sourcebook" by Rich Orloff and David Harland has the impact points. For instance Apollo 10's S-IC was 30.188 deg N, 74.207 deg W while Apollo 11's was 30.212N, 74.038W. I don't know how big an area a location to that accuracy would cover. Those are pretty accurate locations. At the equator, 0.001 degree is about 100 meters, and it is less than that at those locations - if they are rounded properly and not converted from less-accurate minutes and seconds. Well, they are certainly precise. We might assume accuracy. The timelords over in comp.protocols.time.ntp often point-out the distinction between precision and accuracy when discussing time and I suspect the same applies for location. Exactly. BTW, I did find: http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apol...rth_Impact.htm That site is the on-line version of "Apollo by the Numbers" which is the previous edition of the Sourcebook I mentioned above. In the current edition the impact points are included in the main text rather than tabulated. http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/SP-4029.htm -- Gordon Davie Edinburgh, Scotland "Slipped the surly bonds of Earth...to touch the face of God." |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
recovered F-1 engines - which mission?
On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 06:48:34 -0700, Fred J. McCall
wrote: If they had the position to the nearest second in minutes and seconds, the precision is 0.000277777777 of a degree. And no, you can't "specify any number of digits".... You seem to be assuming that they measure either to 0.001 degree or 1 second. You can measure to a fraction of a second or 0.0001 degree or 0.00001 degree. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
recovered F-1 engines - which mission?
In article ,
Fred J. McCall wrote: The statement was that a 'minutes/seconds' figure was LESS ACCURATE than a 0.001 degree solution. That statement was absolute bull****. Are you starting to get my point now? I had thought that the original statement was that if the original data was in minutes/seconds and was converted to decimal with too many digits after the conversion. For instance, 25 minutes is .4166667 implies much more precision than is approriate. marcus hall |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
recovered F-1 engines - which mission?
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Falcon 9 - First stage to be recovered! | Alan Erskine[_3_] | Space Shuttle | 20 | December 13th 10 08:58 PM |
SRB's not recovered? | Dac | Space Shuttle | 4 | December 28th 06 05:46 PM |
Photos of Discovery's Recovered Left SRB | [email protected] | Policy | 1 | August 3rd 05 01:53 AM |