Re: Routine Obs Reporting

JAY RESPLER (jrespler@superlink.net)
Thu, 29 Jul 1999 23:55:32 -0400 

> >Postings are supposed to help and activate visual observers.
> >It is OK for beginners to share their enthusiasm by reporting
> >everything, but in general a report should at least contain
> >something unexpected. Another exception is Russell Eberst's
> >(and similar) accurate reports, which may be used for orbit calculations.

This would be a good description of what should be posted here.

> >I would like to see reports on Iridium flares at unpredicted
> >times/magnitudes, or other flares/flashes with both RA/dec and az/el.

UNpredicted, yes.  Other normal flashes, even with positions, should not be
posted.

> >Maneuvering satellites that are not on time should be reported
> >(and other satellites where prediction errors are larger than
> >expected).

These are appropriate.

> If "uninteresting" observations are included, the
> >Subject: line should clearly indicate what is important.

Uninteresting obs should not be included at all.

> Iridium 11A #25577 98074A - this was reported to let others know that it is
> still operational and flare predictions are still accurate for it. But i
> suppose it can be considered as a routine obs.

Unless there has been a question about a particular Iridium, it's not necessary
to give updates.

>JERS 1 #21867 92007A -i have not been getting any predictions that this one
> is making visible passes which is understandable given the numbers for it,
> 3.1 0.9 1.8 6.8 d 11.4.

I don't see how that size indicates that it should not be visible.

> One night i saw it flare twice and after ID'ing it,
> i looked for it again and was able to see it on consectutive nights and at
> times flaring up to 3 times plus i saw an unknown leading it one night,
> which i reported.

With any sat, seeing it flare one night should not be reported. Most sats can
flare at odd times. If it flares on different nights at the same az/el, that
possible pattern should be reported.

> COS-B r #08063 75072B - this was not predicted to make a visible pass last
> night and given it's 317km x 2700km orbit, it's an interesting object IMO.

This is included in my VISIBLE.TLE so it's known to be naked eye visible.
That alone does not make it interesting enough to report.
The fact that it was visible even though not predicted is a function of how the
control file is set up, not a characteristic of the sat itself.

> osmos 744 r #07969 750556B - or the most part it was routine but the brief
> flare made it a bit more interesting.

Again, random flares should not be reported. If a repeating pattern is found,
that certainly should be reported.

>  should posts only be made if something interesting is seen 

Yes.

>and what is considered interesting? 

Something out of the ordinary.

>Should
> rules or criteria for what can or can not be reported be applied to the
> list? 

We don't need a jury ruling on every obs. Common sense should be able to do the
job.

>Should the Subject line include a
> mention of what is of interest or maybe put in a ROR (Routine Obs Report)

No. If it's routine, it shouldn't be posted at all (except for new observer
exuberance).

> optical characteristics of newly launched satellites or
> satellites nearing decay. For me this is as interesting as e.g.
> observing geostationary satellites may be to others with a better
> equipment, or making positional measurements and orbit analysis of
> spysats to another bunch of listees.

These would all be appropriate.

> particularly useless to state that a known object
> passed close to some star or constellation.

Right. Those comments are completely irrelevant to any discussion. The only
exception might be a flare regularly occurring in a particular location. That's
a clue for others to check the same area.

> I take this opportunity to ask everybody to refrain
> from excessively quoting messages. It has become a
> habit to quote pages of text, only to add "I agree"
> 
> The HTML attachments which some ill-configured mailers
> generate also belong to this category.

Maybe a few 'deputies' can be appointed to officially tell those writers they're
violating List guidelines.

>If anyone feels they would like to share a 'mundane'observation I would >like> to point out that the newsgroup...
> 
> sci.astro.satellites.visual-observe
> 
> ...doesn't intrude on anyone's mailbox and if anything, suffers from too
>little- traffic. I would encourage everyone in the SeeSat community to make
> full use of this under-used resource.

This is a very good suggestion. That's one reason it was set up. This would
solve the problems and make everyone happier.

>Thankfully, few posts on this list include solely routine pass reports of 
>non-operational objects.

Unfortunately, there are more than a few.  That's why someone raised the issue
in the first place.

-- 
Jay Respler
--
          JRespler@superlink.net 
Sky Views: http://mars.superlink.net/jrespler/skyviews.htm
   Satellite Tracker * Early Typewriter Collector
           Freehold, New Jersey