Jim Varney replied: >>The following objects had a jump in Mean Motion and * MIGHT * accelerate: >>14760 = 84- 19 B 88- 1 B = 18749(added today!) >>19922 = 89- 28 B 91- 81 B = 21797 >>----------------------------------- >>All these objects need to be observed as soon as possible. > >Only one hour after I read this message, 88- 1 B made a very good pass >over my location. Is that soon enough? :) 88- 1 B 96-04-09 20:10 KJ S, +6 rising to +3 88- 1 B 96-04-10 02:42 PM S, +6 slowly rising to +5 88- 1 B 96-04-10 04:20 JEV S, obs after MM decr 84- 19 B 96-04-10 09:50 PM S, +4.5 fading slowly to +6 [I also added observations from Paul Maley]. Fantastic!, after I sent the report I also noticed that it would be visible and could even observe it... I was disappointed to see it ... Steady. Although at the beginning it was rather faint and became brighter later on. Maybe it indicates a long period, but it can also be a phase effect of course. >It's a little disappointing that there was no observable change. Question >for the TLE experts: could the decrease in mean motion and the negative >b-star drag term result from an adjustment by USSPACECOM to better fit >new observations and there was no actual physical change in the orbit? I've been questioning about this for years: how are the observations of the object reduced to TLEs? If an object is observed from different sites, can this cause a difference in TLEs? If a jump in Mean Motion occurs, can this been flattened in the succesive elements by a way of integration that is used? What I mean is that a TLE with a certain epoch has to be a kind of an itegration of obs around (before of course) that epoch and the TLE is not really instantenous.