> (estimates are difficult for objects this bright, but mag -4 or so) Yes, they are difficult. I take even my own with a grain to a heap of salt. I once saw Mir with Venus in the sky at the same time, so I'm pretty darn confident of that estimate of mag -3. > Subject: What is Cosmos 1953? I have posted dozens of messages here in SeeSat-L about the Tselina-Ds, especially about C* 1953 and C* 1933. At one time I followed an old tradition and confused the Tselinas with the Okeans (no one seems to be able to distinguish the orbits, tho the radio emissions apparently differ), and I called them the C* 1933 family. It seems they (or some of them) have a characteristic life cycle, including the spectacular behavior you cite. Well worth looking into. I think I've posted a complete list of objects here a couple of times, but could do so again. I am hopeful the Kettering Group or somebody will have detailed records of dates of transmissions and I hope to correlate these with whatever brightness data is available from PPAS (or elsewhere). Please, Leigh, and everyone, report your observations of brightness of the Tselinas for the PPAS. Even fragmentary reports might be useful. And this includes reports of observations as early as 1978. If you can't get organized enough to send them for PPAS (right about now Bart and Kurt are shaking their fingers like school masters, not only at those not reporting, but also at me for suggesting such a thing :-), please send what you have to me (to me for the Tselinas only). > Cosmos 1953 is not on the "100 brightest satellites list". I guess you mean Jay's list, from Kelso. Even given all the grief I've given Jay about omitting EGP, still, I agree that even the active Tselinas do not belong there, because, being often difficult to pick up, they will cause too much frustration to too many observers. "100 brightest" doesn't mean "100 most rewarding". Many satellites which glint brightly are not in VISUAL.TLE. The bright NOSS triads aren't there either, I believe. It's the nature of the beast. Observing satellites involves some risk-taking. For those who lean more toward shooting fish in a barrel, there are more predictable objects like comets and long-period variable stars, not to mention Galilean satellites and globular clusters. > I have never seen Mir as bright. Keep looking. (earnest :-) Cheers. Walter Nissen dk058@cleveland.freenet.edu -81.8637, 41.3735, 256m elevation P.S. Thanks, Mike, for your reply. --- EGP : the Queen of coruscation