re: Iridial Tabulation, Iridium, index constellation messages
Walter Nissen (wnissen@freenet.tlh.fl.us)
Wed, 20 Oct 1999 13:45:20 -0400 (EDT)
geoffh@southlights.gen.nz, Geoff Hitchcox writes:
> I offer the following comments to add to "perfecting"
> the wonderful table of Walter's.
Thank you for the kind words.
> P00 - P0A Agree
> P20 - P2A Agree
> P50 - P5A Agree
>
> Walter------Geoff
>
> P10 24* P10 45
> P11 47 P11 47
> P12R 11A P12R 11A
> P13 49 P13 49
> P14 26 P14 26
> P15R 3 P15R 3
> P16 22 P16 22
> P17 23 P17 24
> P18 76 P18 23
> P19 25 P19 76
> P1A 45 P1A 25
>
> Walter------Geoff
>
> P30 5 P30 5
> P31 6 P31 6
> P32 7 P32 7
> P33 8 P33 8
> P34 4 P34 4
> P35 35* P35 37
> P36 61 P36 61
> P37 19 P37 19
> P38 34 P38 34
> P39 37* P39 35
> P3A 36 P3A 36
>
> Walter------Geoff
>
> P40 10* P40 9
> P41 9* P41 10
> P42 52* P42 54
> P43 12 P43 12
> P44 13 P44 13
> P45R 83 P45R 83
> P46 16 P46 16
> P47 53* P47 50
> P48 56 P48 56
> P49 50* P49 52
> P4A 54* P4A 53
Thanks for "looking" into this.
The discrepancies you cite for planes P3 and P4 are the long-standing
differences between the Kelso-OIG nomenclature and the
Iridium-Motorola-Maley-McCants-Pickup nomenclature, those which are
starred in the table of the Iridial constellation. I downloaded McCants'
iridium.zip and ran QuickSat on plane P1. I don't see anything in his
names like what you describe; only the "expected" 24/46 mixup.
It has been a while since I've surfed by Kelso's site, but the 2 obvious
explanations which spring to mind are a) that someone has invented still
another new crop of names and b) some failure of hardware, software or
operator which caused your results to become unreliable.
Additional weird names argue powerfully for any proposal for stable
nomenclature.
starman@camtech.net.au (Tony Beresford) writes:
> findsat showed that Iridium 37 was in that part
> of the sky at around that time.
> If its clear tonite I shall try to catch iridium 37 tonite.
As Geoff notes, Iridium 37 is an ambiguous name; one which suggests a
couple of possibilities.
Now, of course, any of us using any prediction program could use the place
and time given to make up our own story about Ir P35 37/35 and
Ir P39 35/37. That wouldn't be so bad in this particular circumstance.
But we have had reports here of flashers. If one of 2 confused objects is
a known flasher, is it desirable for us to assume that the report refers
to the known flasher? No, not at all. If we do that, then who is making
the report? It should be the observer who makes the report, not some
distant commentator. The difference is very important. For one thing,
observers' reports should be respected, not twisted to conform to a
convenient theory. For another, there is a very problematic category
confusion. If a known flasher is flashing, that is "ho, hum, no big
deal". If an object not known to flash has been seen to flash, that is
_news_, and a call for confirmations.
b_gimle@algonet.se ("Bjoern Gimle") writes:
> I appreciate your initiative, and propose that Mike and/or Alan
> adopt one or other of the designation schemes.
Thank you. I should have thanked you earlier for your various insights.
I posted a message about ambiguity of the word "double", in the context of
glints: http://www2.satellite.eu.org/seesat/Dec-1998/0143.html.
Messages containing tables of the Iridial constellation:
a) latest version of the simplest, most interesting part
b) full table as of 1999 June, incl cat #s, COSPAR IDs, additional info
c) proposed nomenclature based on Iridium-Motorola info via Paul Maley
d) additional info, incl polar clustering
e) additional info
f) additional info, incl geometrical details
a) http://www2.satellite.eu.org/seesat/Oct-1999/0202.html
b) http://www2.satellite.eu.org/seesat/Jun-1999/0025.html
c) http://www2.satellite.eu.org/seesat/Dec-1998/0174.html
d) http://www2.satellite.eu.org/seesat/Nov-1998/0344.html
e) http://www2.satellite.eu.org/seesat/Oct-1998/0105.html
f) http://www2.satellite.eu.org/seesat/Aug-1998/0136.html
I should mention having some quirky difficulty reading my mail. So, I owe
some of you thanks for your kind responses and also an apology for
ignoring what I had previously missed seeing, and now ask for patience as
I try to catch up.
Cheers.
Walter Nissen wnissen@tfn.net
-81.8637, 41.3735, 256m elevation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe from SeeSat-L by sending a message with 'unsubscribe'
in the SUBJECT to SeeSat-L-request@lists.satellite.eu.org
http://www2.satellite.eu.org/seesat/seesatindex.html