Top 10
Walter Nissen (dk058@cleveland.Freenet.Edu)
Mon, 1 Jul 1996 09:43:55 -0400
A correspondent, who has not authorized this quote, writes last week:
> signed onto the SeeSat-L mailing list last month, ... do you
> have any ... suggestions for "sure fire" satellites - ones predictably
> bright enough to be seen with the naked eye, besides the space shuttle and
> Mir? Do you know if there is any sort of brightness ranking for satellites
> anywhere? - a sort of "Top 10" list?
(One could dismiss this desire by adopting this attitude:
If you want to shoot fish in a barrel, there are many
astronomical objects which are predictably visible,
including Mercury, Pluto, comets, meteors. If you
hunger a bit more for the hunt, satellites are more
suitable.
I will not do so, but take note of the valid point.)
As long-time subscribers to SeeSat-L already know, I have written
repeatedly on this subject, here and on the Celestial BBS, but without
ever actually being able to compile a Top 10 list. I have warned against
a) using old elsets, b) looking for radio dots, and c) programs which
display the shadow ingress and egress improperly. I've suggested that
QuickSat deals quite successfully with each of these problems which
commonly plague people still working toward their first hundred or first
dozen satellites. I've tried to characterize the causes of variability
and unpredictability in satellite brightness. I've produced a list of the
brightest satellites I've seen. (This list and QuickSat and all the
previous messages are available from the archive.)
Quite recently, I noted that Jay Respler and TS Kelso's VISUAL.TLE is a
pretty good "Top 100" and suggested that people might make suggestions for
a Top 10 list.
Not too many did, and one of the thoughtful lists went in a slightly
different direction.
There are a number of problems with characterizing a Top 10. A satellite
which is occasionally very bright, but not consistently so, is not very
suitable. (Among others, the NOAAs sometimes reach mag -1). Even the
shuttle is not fully reliable. A bright tumbler may be fine for a certain
period of time, but then develop such a long period that it becomes
troublesome. You may like the Zenit-2's, but there are more than a dozen
of them, not 10, all but one in essentially the same size orbit. GRO is a
very bright satellite but in such a low orbit at such a low inclination
that many active observers have never seen it. The 15.52 EORSATs are
bright, but have short lifetimes, forcing frequent revisions in any list.
Rocket bodies in low eccentric orbits have short lifetimes, but may be
quite spectacular. I had hoped that some genius would characterize all
these factors and develop a great list.
No such luck. Here is a list which is not horrible:
Mir
shuttles
23931
15.52 EORSATs
23596
23748
Lacrosse 1
Lacrosse 2
UARS
Resurs 1-3 r
HST
GRO
C* 1220
Lacrosse 2 r
KH 11's & 12's
19625
22251
23728
SeaSat 1
14.13 Zenit-2's
16182
17590
17974
19120
19650
20625
22220
22285
22566
22803
23088
23405
23705
EGP = Ajisai
C* 1093
C* 1703
C* 925
C* 1933
C* 1953
SROSS-C2
DMSP F3
NOSS 2-n's
20682
21799
96294
USA 32 and 81
Anybody want to try to sharpen it up? Or shorten it? Or rank them?
Of course, even with a list, a poor pass from a listed object will not be
as good as a good pass from a hundred or more also rans. Which brings me
back to QuickSat with Ted Molczan's file as input. You have to adjust the
magnitude and altitude limits to taste, and guess about discarding some
highly overrated new objects, and expect a few clunkers making poor
passes, but you get something within shouting distance of what you want.
Cheers.
Walter Nissen dk058@cleveland.freenet.edu
---
The archive has a search facility, and an e-mail message to
seesat-l-request@iris01.plasma.mpe-garching.mpg.de with Subject: archive
and with body:
egrep balloon latest/*
will get you a list of all recent messages containing the word balloon.
Obviously, you could search for spartan, iae, and other words you can
think of. Another message specifying the message numbers will get you the
messages themselves. Once you get some messages, you will probably see
other words you might want to search for.