Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Mean or true obliquity in ecliptic/equatorial transformation? #17

Open
onekiloparsec opened this issue Dec 22, 2016 · 1 comment
Open

Mean or true obliquity in ecliptic/equatorial transformation? #17

onekiloparsec opened this issue Dec 22, 2016 · 1 comment
Labels
suggestion
Milestone
3.0

Comments

@onekiloparsec
Copy link
Owner

See #11 . One must provide sensible default probably.
@onekiloparsec onekiloparsec added this to the 2.0 milestone Dec 22, 2016
@onekiloparsec onekiloparsec mentioned this issue Dec 22, 2016
Closed
@alex-vasenin
Copy link
Contributor

I think it's more about which model of celestial object we would like to use: mean, apparent or vsop. I think we can refactor highPrecision to enum with .mean/.apparent/.vsop cases and move it to CelestialBody, so it will be obvious which obliquity/nutation/orbits/etc parameters to use.

@onekiloparsec onekiloparsec modified the milestones: 2.1, 2.0 Feb 17, 2017
@onekiloparsec onekiloparsec changed the title Think about which obliquity to use: mean or true in ecliptic/equatorial transform Mean or true obliquity in ecliptic/equatorial transformation? Sep 23, 2017
@onekiloparsec onekiloparsec modified the milestones: 2.1, 3.0 Sep 23, 2017
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
suggestion
Projects
None yet
Milestone
3.0
Development

No branches or pull requests
2 participants
@onekiloparsec @alex-vasenin