The formation of the astronomy policy established during the reign of King Jeongjo(正祖) in 1789 represented a sharp challenge for official scholars such as Yi Ga-hwan(李家煥), Yi Seo-gu(李書九), Yi Man-su(李晩秀), Yun Haeng-im(尹行恁) etc. The objectives of this desired policy were two-pronged: to establish various theories about traditional astronomy and calendrical science, and to analyze the strengths and weakness of traditional calendrical astronomy by summarizing the history of the amendments to calendrical astronomy. In addition, it was also designed, based on an analysis of the indigenous characteristics, strengths and weaknesses of the various tools and apparatuses used for astronomical observations, to facilitate the understanding of the theoretical tenets and challenges posed by newly introduced Western astronomy and calendrical science. The incorporation of the results of these studies into traditional astronomy and calendrical science was ultimately designed to establish more comprehensive principles of astronomy and calendrical science. Yi Ga-hwan and others asserted that the key to the resolution of the relevant problems lay in the education of new manpower imbibed with new ideas on how to conduct the tasks related to the reestablishment of astronomy and calendrical science. However, leading scholars of the day exhibited different opinions about what the actual contents of astronomy and calendrical science should be. While Yi Ga-hwan actively accepted Western astronomy and mathematics, other scholars arduously defended the values of traditional calendrical astronomy while criticizing the Shixian li(時憲曆, a calendar based on Western mathematical calculations) and requiring the creation of a new form of calendrical astronomy. These differences originated from the fact that while Yi Ga-hwan focused on the practical aspects of calendrical astronomy, other scholars emphasized the importance of calendrical astronomy from the standpoint of political theory. More fundamentally however, these differences were the result of these individual scholars different academic, ideological, and political positions.