Guys,
There is an arithmetic mistake in the original article! The method is fine, it's just the numbers from my calculations are not!
I have sent Mike a corrected article, so hopefully it will be put to rest soon.
Of course, someone from CN found it, and broadcast it, much to my embarrassment, but I congratulate them for being on the ball!
(Good on you Mardi!) Mike sent me a copy of the post asking my opinion... gee, I hate that feeling when you know you stuffed up!
The mistake was that I actually used 2.32m as the focal length of the C8 and not 2.032m. Marvellous what a difference a zero makes! If I had worked in mm as I usually do the answer would have been out by an order of magnitude and I would've picked it. As it was, I had previously calculated 1059m for the pixel size on the moon at 10x foe the C8, but when writing this article I kept getting 928m or whatever it was. I thought it was wrong, checked it several times and repeatedly got the same answer so figured I must have used the apogee distance to the moon, and not the average distance, previously.
...a shining example of why you should never proof read your own work or check your own calculations! Glad no one was killed!!!
Al.
How Embarrassing!
