RE: accuracy of ISS / Venus transit track

From: Kevin Fetter (kfetter@yahoo.com)
Date: Thu Jun 03 2004 - 21:13:24 EDT

  • Next message: Thomas Fly: "Re: accuracy of ISS / Venus transit track"

    --- "Matson, Robert" <ROBERT.D.MATSON@saic.com> wrote:
    > There is no need to complicate your analysis by computing refraction.
    > For a ground-based observer, refraction will bend the light rays
    > from the Sun, Venus and ISS by equal amounts.  Thus, the apparent
    > position of ISS relative to the Sun/Venus would be identical, even
    > if the earth had no atmosphere.
    
    Rob is correct, as usual:) The iss would not shift with respect to the sun, because of refraction,
    so I am not sure why you thought it would.
     
    > 
    > By far the greatest source of uncertainty in the ISS transit calculation
    > is the accuracy of the TLE itself.  For example, one big solar outburst
    > in the next day or two would change all your predictions.
    > 
    
    Again correct. There's a gps antenna installed on one of the trusses of the iss, and the reciver
    on board determine's the iss position to around an estimated 100 m, I read somewhere. One problem
    is the iss is made of metal, so the multipath is bad:) So the position of the iss is a big factor
    in the calculation, then for path width, there the uncertainty in the size of the sun/moon and it
    effect on the calculation. I read the sun is been thought to change size even if slightly. I
    remember they were trying to use solar eclipse's to see what going on.
    
    Just my option.
    
    Kevin
    
    
    
    	
    		
    __________________________________
    Do you Yahoo!?
    Friends.  Fun.  Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
    http://messenger.yahoo.com/ 
    
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Subscribe/Unsubscribe info, Frequently Asked Questions, SeeSat-L archive:  
    http://www.satobs.org/seesat/seesatindex.html
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jun 03 2004 - 21:18:01 EDT