>On Wed, 5 Nov 1997, Jeff Hunt wrote: >> Only speculation on my part, but why would the international designation >>for >> Progress M-36 (97058) be applied to Sputnik 40? I realize it was delivered >> on M-36, but why not a Mir international designation since it was launched >> from Mir during the EVA 3? JAY RESPLER <jrespler@InJersey.com> said: >It originally left earth on Progress. After launch, it was transferred >to Mir. It makes sense to have id be related to original launch. The problem with this logic is that it contradicts what has been done before. There have been a couple of ISKRA satellites hand ejected from Salyut 7, and the GFZ-1 satellite (1986 017JE) which was hand-ejected from Mir. In both cases the 'parent' spacecraft designation was used for the international designation. >Jonathan Space Report shows 58C = Sputnik. > >Nov 3 0405 Sputnik 40 Mir,LEO Demo 58C Craig Cholar said: >OIG has named 24958 (97058C) "Sputnik Jr" in their thirty.tle file, so >that confirms Vladimir Agapov's previous post. Anyone else think the Jr >(Junior) name is just a little *too* cute? Not just cute but confusing. The term 'Junior' is rarely used outside of the United States. The "actual" name is Spoutnik-40. But that's just the French spelling for 'Sputnik' which of course is the Russian word for fellow traveller. I've seen the name Sputnik 2 - which is clearly incorrect because of the ambiguity with the *original* Sputnik 2 with Laika aboard (1957 2A) as well as other unofficial names. NASA TV showed a replay of Pavel Vinogradov tossing the satellite overboard during the spacewalk. My initial thought was 'well there's another piece of space debris' ;-) According to the designers the batteries are expected to last about two weeks. After their depleted I would guess that the satellite would remain in space for another year or two. Philip Chien [M1959.05.31/31.145//KC4YER@amsat.org]