OBS needed of C* 2221, deliberate(?) orbital eccentricity

Walter Nissen (dk058@cleveland.Freenet.Edu)
Mon, 20 Jan 1997 21:16:15 -0500 (EST)

I would again like to request, urgently, additional observations of 
Cosmos 2221                                      (elset courtesy OIG) 
1 22236U 92080A   97020.88595199  .00000087  00000-0  98661-5 0   874 
2 22236  82.5143 190.6329 0023699  27.6298 332.6164 14.73957804223700 
I'm not quite sure what is happening with Cosmos 2221.  I have received 
virtually no reports whatever.  Here is what data I have, followed by some 
comments, and a reply to an October 3rd message from Ted Molczan. 
I made this up from a SeeSat-L message: 
92- 80 A 96-09-27   :  :     Leigh Palmer             S?, during? lunar eclipse 
                                                      no variation mentioned 
Russell Eberst kindly supplied this: 
2420 9610 0.221 1204 
9208001 052756.61 062235+582649 3.7 3.7 0 S 
9208001 052818.89 063822+443006 3.8 3.8 0 S 
I tried again to look into PPAS files, but was consistently thwarted both 
on the Web and using FTP. 
This what I have from my log for PPAS: 
Walter I. Nissen, Jr., CDP, dk058@cleveland.freenet.edu, 55 Barrett RD #808, 
Berea, OH 44017-1657, USA, 216-243-4980, -81d 51.823', 41d 22.413', 256m, 7x35 
92- 80 A 96-03-24  1:14:02   WN                       S, C* 2221 
92- 80 A 96-03-27  0:54:58   WN                       S, C* 2221 
92- 80 A 96-04-08  9:52:24.8 WN  114.2  .6   1 114.2  F'F', C* 2221 
                             Neither F was totally certain, the second 
                             appearing much like atmospheric turbulence 
92- 80 A 96-06-05  2:46:37   WN                       S, C* 2221 
92- 80 A 96-06-11  2:08:50   WN                       S, C* 2221 
92- 80 A 96-07-27  8:51:18   WN                       S, C* 2221 
92- 80 A 96-08-04            WN                       unseen, C* 2221 
92- 80 A 96-10-08  0:12: 8.4 WN   57.6  .4   1  57.6  F'M_F', C* 2221 
                   0:12: 8.40   F       mag 1? 
                   0:12:36.95   M       mag 3? 
                   0:12:56.16   missing mag 6? or fainter 
                   0:13: 5.97   F       mag 1? 
92- 80 A 97-01-19 11:12:49.2 WN  141.2  .3   2  70.6  F'F'A_F', C* 2221 
                  11:12:49.25   F       mag 3 or 2 
                  11:13:59.69   F       mag 3? 
                  11:14:40.34   A or F  mag 2? 
                  11:15: 7.53   missing mag 7? or fainter 
                  11:15:10.49   F       mag 1? 
                  disappeared behind (my) building a few seconds later 
If one imputes some additional "personal equation", i.e., lag, into the 
timing at 11:12:49.25 because I was not as well prepared for it as the 
later ones (plus the usual morning metabolism problem), then a period of 
70.7 or 70.8 is supportable. 
It looked quite steady at mag 5? as I picked it up not too far from the 
horizon, but after a short while, the startling F at 11:12:49.25 was seen. 
In addition to the "F behavior", there was considerable variation in its 
"steadier behavior".  Surrounding the event at 11:14:40.34, it was 
mostly about mag 3?, while later surrounding the event at 11:15:10.49 it was 
mostly about mag 6?, despite being at a high altitude.  I could not definitely 
relate this variation to the "F behavior".  It is probably significant, 
i.e., not coincidental, that the object disappeared some seconds prior to 
the final Fs both on 961008 and 970119. 
Looks like C* 2221 is displaying Tselina-like behavior, i.e., flashing 
which is irregular both in period and in amplitude, but it certainly 
doesn't closely resemble C* 1933 and C* 1953 with their rapidly-decaying 
short periods.  Did we somehow miss the short-period phase?  Still, this 
behavior is quite different from the steady-as-a-rock Okean behavior. 
Subject: RE: Are the orbits of the Tselinas and the Okeans distinguishable? 
Ted Molczan writes: 
> Walter Nissen wrote: 
> >Can the Tselinas and Okeans be distinguished by the size and shapes of 
> >their orbits? 
> I have never found any differences. 
> >It seems to me that the small eccentricity of the orbits is quite 
> >deliberate.  The objects must always be separated in 3D, even as their 
> >orbits age and shrink somewhat unpredictably.  Their ma's cannot be phased 
> >and spaced because of the unpredictability of the atmosphreric drag.  So 
> >the orbits are given a small eccentricity and chosen so as to prevent 
> >collisions.  Is this so?  Or does that small ecc have some other 
> >rationale? 
> It appears to me that the small eccentricity is 
> typical of other near-circular orbits. Probably 
> it represents an acceptable tolerance, instead 
> of a special design. 
I've thought about this and can't justify it.  They nail the apogee and 
the perigee, but can't nail the eccentricity?  That doesn't seem plausible 
to me.  All planes intersect on the equator.  It may have been acceptable 
for the recovery ships to have been dead (pun possibly intended) center as 
the splashdown target for the very small number of Apollo missions, but 
when you have multiple planes and dozens of satellites making 15 revs per 
day, wouldn't it be prudent to find a systematic way to allow them to 
avoid one another?  Surely someone who reads SeeSat-L must have analyzed 
the orbits of some family of satellites to see where the perigees are? 
There is one Japanese satellite that actually is in a pretty circular 
orbit.  I recall joking about how it is yet another example of the 
Japanese perfecting a concept developed elsewhere.  But I don't believe 
the premise of the joke. 
Walter Nissen                   dk058@cleveland.freenet.edu 
Failure to "get" a joke is no proof of high intelligence.