Peterson Field Guide

I have a Stars and Planets guide updated to 1995. Is is
still accurate enough in '06?

Yes these are printed in "epochs" of 50 years the last was 1950 and the next
will be 2050. The charts change very slowly due to precession - the 26,000
year wobble of earth's axis.

"MThomas" wrote in message
news:gJVyg.134925$A8.43966@clgrps12...
I have a Stars and Planets guide updated to 1995. Is is
still accurate enough in '06?

"John Taylor" wrote in message
news:GtWyg.2462$zV6.594@trnddc03...
Yes these are printed in "epochs" of 50 years the last was 1950 and the
next will be 2050. The charts change very slowly due to precession - the
26,000 year wobble of earth's axis.

"MThomas" wrote in message
news:gJVyg.134925$A8.43966@clgrps12...
I have a Stars and Planets guide updated to 1995. Is is
still accurate enough in '06?


Then why do they bother saying things like "up to 1995" and not 2050?
Why do they even bother with "epochs".?

MThomas wrote:


Then why do they bother saying things like "up to 1995" and not 2050?
Why do they even bother with "epochs".?




It's not that hard to comprehend--The planetary data is updated
in each new edition of Peterson's Field Guide to the Stars and
Planets. Much of the material is updated in each new edition.

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:PJ1zg.108423$1i1.92131@attbi_s72...
MThomas wrote:


Then why do they bother saying things like "up to 1995" and not 2050?
Why do they even bother with "epochs".?


It's not that hard to comprehend--The planetary data is updated
in each new edition of Peterson's Field Guide to the Stars and
Planets. Much of the material is updated in each new edition.


If it's not hard to comprehend then why didn't you answer my querstion?

MThomas wrote:
"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:PJ1zg.108423$1i1.92131@attbi_s72...

MThomas wrote:


Then why do they bother saying things like "up to 1995" and not 2050?
Why do they even bother with "epochs".?


It's not that hard to comprehend--The planetary data is updated
in each new edition of Peterson's Field Guide to the Stars and
Planets. Much of the material is updated in each new edition.


If it's not hard to comprehend then why didn't you answer my querstion?



You might want to consider reading books by Dale Carnegie,
Debbie Mandel or Robert Fulghum.

MThomas wrote:
"John Taylor" wrote in message
news:GtWyg.2462$zV6.594@trnddc03...
Yes these are printed in "epochs" of 50 years the last was 1950 and the
next will be 2050. The charts change very slowly due to precession - the
26,000 year wobble of earth's axis.

"MThomas" wrote in message
news:gJVyg.134925$A8.43966@clgrps12...
I have a Stars and Planets guide updated to 1995. Is is
still accurate enough in '06?


Then why do they bother saying things like "up to 1995" and not 2050?
Why do they even bother with "epochs".?

Why? Because due to precession, coordinates will be significantly off
over time. For most folks, Epoch 2000 will be very useable now. For
some critical applications, it will not be. And Epoch 1950.0 charts are
really too far "out" for many applications.

Just for finding things by star hopping (what Peterson's is usually
used for, I guess), it's not critical.

On 2006-07-30, MThomas wrote:

Then why do they bother saying things like "up to 1995" and not 2050?
Why do they even bother with "epochs".?

If you had ever seen a Peterson Field Guide to the Stars and
Planets you would know that it includes an almanac. The current
edition has tables up to 2014.

Bud

"William Hamblen" wrote in message
. ..
On 2006-07-30, MThomas wrote:

Then why do they bother saying things like "up to 1995" and not 2050?
Why do they even bother with "epochs".?

If you had ever seen a Peterson Field Guide to the Stars and
Planets you would know that it includes an almanac. The current
edition has tables up to 2014.

Bud

Great. Four different answers of which yours is most useful. Thanks.

And each of which was completely voluntary and offered free of charge.
I second the Dale Carnegie suggestion.

- Chris

"MThomas" writes:

"William Hamblen" wrote in message
. ..
On 2006-07-30, MThomas wrote:

Then why do they bother saying things like "up to 1995" and not 2050?
Why do they even bother with "epochs".?

If you had ever seen a Peterson Field Guide to the Stars and
Planets you would know that it includes an almanac. The current
edition has tables up to 2014.

Bud

Great. Four different answers of which yours is most useful. Thanks.



--
(. .)
=ooO=(_)=Ooo=====================================
Chris McMahan |
=================================================