Reputation: 426
I'm refactoring some old code that used PyEphem to use Skyfield, and I'm getting a slight difference in the results of the GHA/dec of a body.
def sf(year):
from skyfield.api import N, W, wgs84
from skyfield.api import load
from skyfield.units import Angle
ts = load.timescale()
eph = load('de421.bsp')
greenwich = wgs84.latlon(58.47722 * N, 0.0 * W)
t = ts.utc(year)
e = eph['earth'] + greenwich
v = eph['venus']
ha = e.at(t).observe(v).hadec()
gha = Angle(degrees=360.0 + ha[0]._degrees)
print(f'{gha}, {ha[1]}')
def pe(year):
import ephem
greenwich = ephem.Observer()
greenwich.lon = 0.0
greenwich.lat = ephem.degrees('51:28:38')
greenwich.pressure = 0.0
greenwich.horizon = '-0:34'
t = ephem.date(str(year))
v = ephem.Venus()
greenwich.date = t
greenwich.epoch = t
v.compute(greenwich)
gha = ephem.twopi - v.g_ra + greenwich.sidereal_time()
print(f'{ephem.degrees(gha)}, {ephem.degrees(v.g_dec)}')
if __name__ == '__main__':
sf(2016)
pe(2016)
Yields the results:
219deg 41' 57.5", -18deg 37' 03.9"
219:42:15.7, -18:36:56.0
The old PyEphem code agrees with the Nautical Almanac I have in front of me.
This is definitely a PEBKAC, but I'm scratching my head to find what temporal or spatial transformation I've missed.
Upvotes: 0
Views: 227
Reputation: 89415
It looks like you are asking Skyfield for astrometric positions, but PyEphem for apparent positions. According to the PyEphem documentation:
"g_ra and ra — Apparent geocentric right ascension for the epoch-of-date"
https://rhodesmill.org/pyephem/quick.html#body-compute-date
Whereas with Skyfield, you have to call the .apparent()
method on a position to learn the corresponding apparent position; it does not happen automatically:
https://rhodesmill.org/skyfield/positions.html#barycentric-astrometric-apparent
See if that change eliminates most of the difference between coordinates.
Upvotes: 1