Re: anomalies - in orbit or not?

From: Jonathan McDowell (planet4589@gmail.com)
Date: Tue Dec 24 2013 - 00:44:04 UTC

  • Next message: wkitty42@gmail.com: "Re: anomalies - in orbit or not?"

    Many of these seem to have reentry dates later than the most recent
    TLE - they reentered
    in the last few weeks and their TLEs stopped at that time. So I don't
    see the problem.
    
    There are some like 30381 where an object was lost, issued a decay
    date, and then the catalog
    number was (EVILLY) reused for another object which is still in orbit.
    In the particular case of 30381
    the object is now listed as in orbit on space-track, but I failed to
    catch that change in my own lists -
    I'll update it when I refresh my web site in January.
    
     Jonathan
    
    
    
    On 23 December 2013 18:58, wkitty42@gmail.com <wkitty42@gmail.com> wrote:
    >
    > i've recently noted some anomalies with the various satellite catalogs and the
    > TLEs that are available from numerous sources... mainly the catalogs list
    > certain objects as no longer in orbit but we're (still) getting (updated) TLEs
    > for those objects... the list is not very large which is a good thing :)
    >
    > the following is the list of objects listed as "down" (indicated by a '!'
    > prefixing their common name by my software) followed by their TLE epoch, decoded
    > epoch date and time and finally their calculated perigee, apogee and inclination
    > all from the current TLE available for the object...
    >
    > 30381 !deb FY-1C        13354.47007591 2013-12-20 11:16:54  PxAxI:     844 x 936
    >      x  99.1283
    > 38903 !deb Briz-M       13329.37286169 2013-11-25 08:56:55  PxAxI:     189 x 301
    >      x  50.0250
    > 38932 !deb Briz-M       13330.25932910 2013-11-26 06:13:26  PxAxI:     226 x 663
    >      x  49.0853
    > 38938 !deb Briz-M       13338.01705126 2013-12-04 00:24:33  PxAxI:     147 x 211
    >      x  49.8638
    > 38939 !deb Briz-M       13330.28021302 2013-11-26 06:43:30  PxAxI:     220 x 371
    >      x  50.4593
    > 38852 !Raiko            13218.07382584 2013-08-06 01:46:18  PxAxI:     140 x 146
    >      x  51.6160
    > 34539 !deb Iridium 33   13333.80484043 2013-11-29 19:18:58  PxAxI:     323 x 378
    >      x  86.2908
    > 35922 !deb Iridium 33   13354.53423095 2013-12-20 12:49:17  PxAxI:     724 x 778
    >      x  86.3970
    > 36489 !deb Iridium 33   13355.11121650 2013-12-21 02:40:09  PxAxI:     726 x 755
    >      x  86.4311
    > 33827 !deb Kosmos-2251  13339.61352369 2013-12-05 14:43:28  PxAxI:     195 x 201
    >      x  73.8887
    > 34632 !deb Kosmos-2251  13335.29792227 2013-12-01 07:09:00  PxAxI:     270 x 293
    >      x  73.9437
    > 35458 !deb Kosmos-2251  13327.71081875 2013-11-23 17:03:34  PxAxI:     310 x 349
    >      x  73.8973
    > 35994 !deb Kosmos-2251  13328.43398149 2013-11-24 10:24:56  PxAxI:     337 x 371
    >      x  73.9768
    > 37290 !deb Kosmos-2251  13328.93122941 2013-11-24 22:20:58  PxAxI:     326 x 418
    >      x  73.9152
    >
    > what is the accepted policy by the group when dealing with situations like this?
    > is there one? should the maintainer of the TLEs be notified or the owner of the
    > object? i'm only wanting to try to ensure that the most accurate information is
    > available for those using satellite catalogs and various TLE sets...
    >
    > and yes, i did also run square into the NOSS 2-1B and E object situation :LOL:
    > after some discussion and research, i decided to override their entries in my
    > catalog so as to indicate that the tracking and TLEs are being done by the
    > classfd maintainers... in this way, objects that are being actively tracked
    > won't be left out because of a difference of identification number assignments
    > from 20+ years ago :)
    >
    > as far as that goes, i did see this with three or four objects that are listed
    > in classfd...
    >
    > i also noticed that an object listed in classfd was not listed a few days ago...
    > i don't (yet) know if this object was simply missed in the recent classfd
    > generating or if the object is actually down and no one has listed it as down in
    > any available catalogs... the last orbit i see for the object looks fairly
    > stable and not low enough for it to have decayed but it is possible that it was
    > actively deorbited by the owner or came down for some other reason...
    >
    > --
    > NOTE: No off-list assistance is given without prior approval.
    >        Please keep mailing list traffic on the list unless
    >        private contact is specifically requested and granted.
    > _______________________________________________
    > Seesat-l mailing list
    > http://mailman.satobs.org/mailman/listinfo/seesat-l
    _______________________________________________
    Seesat-l mailing list
    http://mailman.satobs.org/mailman/listinfo/seesat-l
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Dec 24 2013 - 00:44:53 UTC