HomeUpSearchMail
NEW

Evaluating the lunar observations on April 28th 2024 at Calanais I

Introduction

On tis web page, the ground proofing of the 3D scenery of Calanais I site within Stellarium is progressed from the ground proofing on March 31st 2024. On March 31st 2024 the azimuth difference was found to be 0 +/- 0.01deg, which is equivalent to around 0 +/- 3sec.

A few levels might need to be reiterated:

These three levels are hopefully enough to get a good South viewing skyline (from the end of the avenue: near stone 8 and 19). More rotations/transformations could be needed, but that cannot be determined with the present camera location.

Steps to ground proof the Calanais I 3D scenery

On April 28th 2024 some 9 relevant photos were taken (by E. Rennie) to record the Moon going over/through the Calanais I site. These photos are being used to ground proof the Calanais I 3D scenery in Stellarium for the three mentioned levels.

The following steps have been used for the preparation

Photos taken on April 28th, 2024

Here is an overview of the photos used in this evaluation:

DIfferenc ein timing on March 31, 2024

The first Sync. timed photo (DCSF5811) did not look to provided consistent timings of the other photos. The last Sync. timed photo (DCSF5872) though provided reasonable small differences.

So the timing difference in timing is: 3 +/- 8sec. The standard deviation is larger than we found on March 31st, this is due to the lack of real touch moments.

As the standard deviation is large compared to the photos taken on March 31st, so we will not use these photos to make another iteration in the ground proofing.

Next iteration

The results of 8th iteration was that the timing difference is 0 +/- 4sec, or 0 +/- 0.8arcmin. This precision is also close to what is hoped for.
No additional iteration is proposed.


Iterations from initial 3D scenery
1st*
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
230505
230817 230818 230818-2 230818-3 230818-4 230821
230821**
Start
RotVert
[deg]
0
-0.184
-0.184 -0.184 -0.184 -0.184 -0.184 0.013
RotEW
[deg]
0
-0.118
-0.088
-0.088 -0.088 -0.088 -0.088 -0.088
TransEW
[cm]
0
0
0
0
-30 -30 -30 -30
Transvert
[cm]
0
-44
-44 -20
-20 -7
-7 -7
TransNS
[cm]
0
0
0
0
0 +18
0
0
Proposed RotVert
[deg]
-0.184
+0
+0
+0
+0 +0 +0.197
+0
RotEW
[deg]
-0.118
+0.03
+0
+0
+0 +0 +0 +0
TransEW
[cm]
+0
+0
+0
-30
+0
+0 +0 +0
Transvert
[cm]
-44
+0
+24
+0
+13
+0 +0 +0
TransNS
[cm]
+0
+0 +0 +0 +18
-18
+0 +0
The initial 3D scenery is callanish1_Readjusted_20230505.

Experiences

Overall accuracy

We have been able to position the 3D laser scan properly within the 3D scenery and the Moon's path. The accuracy is around 1arcmin, which is close to the accuracy of the 3D laser scan (0.5arcmin). No major improvement in precision looks to be possible.

Sequencing of adjustments

The best sequence of adjustments, by reducing interdependencies, of rotations and transforms is:

Determining remaining rotation and transform

Of course there are still a transform (Cnoc an Turso's DSM in North-South direction: TransNS) and rotation (3D laser scan around North-South axis: RotNS) possible; these are not yet investigated as these can't really be determined using the camera location at stone 8. One would need a camera location at stone 33 or 23 (and times of resp. set or rise events of a celestial object).
A realistic TransNS can't really be determined (as the effect of this is marignal on celestial directions).
The rotation RotNS will not have effect on the Cnoc an Turso's DSM, more on the positioning of 3D laser scan with the celestial object.

Artefacts in the 3D laser scan

A few stones in the 3D laser scan have some triangulation artefacts (these were found as they were handy for aligning the celestial object: red areas); stone 32 (error some 2arcmin: due to possibly wrong normal of some triangles); stone 26 (error some 2 to 3arcmin: missing left side top and small bit on the right side top); stone 27 (error some 2 to 3arcmin: missing left side top); and stone 28 (has a mushroomed top).
Artefacts in 3D scenery stones
These errors make up a part the accuracy of the whole 3D scenery (expected to be around 1 arcmin), so they are not that serious except if these missing stone contours are used for defining 'touch' moments. It would have been nice on this observation day to know the contours, as with a low Moon this precision would have been handy.

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank the following people for their help and constructive feedback: Emma Rennie, and all other unmentioned people. Any remaining errors in methodology or results are my responsibility of course!!! If you want to provide constructive feedback, let me know.

Disclaimer and Copyright
HomeUpSearchMail

Major content related changes: April 28, 2024