RE: Ident required
Ted Molczan (molczan@home.com)
Mon, 8 Feb 1999 21:13:49 -0500
G. Watmore requested:
> Please forgive the lack of technical data regarding the following
>
> On the 13.4.68 at approximately 3.05am I observed an object travelling
> west to east approx 60 deg elevation.
>
> Would be interested in any information pertaining to this object.
> I apoloize once again for the lack of data.
>
> My location;50.9000 N 1.4999W
Thanks to Russell Eberst's intuition and Vladimir Agapov's archival
elements, I believe I can confirm that you probably saw Echo 1.
Using the elset nearest in epoch to your observation:
1 00049U 60009 A 68106.74669761 .00407091 +00000-0 +00000-0 0 06274
2 00049 047.2791 119.1326 0155560 273.3109 084.9897 14.18644318354776
I obtain the following ephemeris:
13/ 4/68 00:00 - 06:00 UTC J2000.0 EL > 1 G Watmore
Echo 1 60009A 49 Bull = 627 G Watmore
SGP4 Age = -2.7 d Unc = 18 s ( 10%)
TIME %I Mv AZ EL R.A. DEC FE VANG RANGE ALT
-------- -- ---- --- -- ----- ------ -- ---- ----- -----
02:05:12 LU 92 -1.9 226 55 13:41 23:02 4 0.35 1128 958
02:05:33 91 -1.9 214 59 14:13 23:25 4 0.38 1091 958
02:05:35 LP 91 -1.9 213 59 14:16 23:26 4 0.38 1088 958
02:05:55 89 -1.9 198 61 14:48 23:17 3 0.39 1069 957
02:06:14 87 -1.9 183 62 15:19 22:42 3 0.39 1065 957
02:06:33 84 -1.9 169 60 15:50 21:41 2 0.39 1076 956
02:06:52 81 -1.8 156 58 16:19 20:19 2 0.37 1100 955
02:07:12 77 -1.7 146 54 16:47 18:37 2 0.35 1140 955
02:07:34 73 -1.5 138 49 17:15 16:33 2 0.32 1199 954
02:07:58 69 -1.3 131 44 17:42 14:13 1 0.28 1278 953
02:08:25 65 -1.0 125 39 18:08 11:39 1 0.25 1382 951
02:08:56 60 -0.8 121 33 18:33 08:53 1 0.21 1518 950
02:09:32 56 -0.4 117 28 18:57 05:59 1 0.17 1693 948
02:10:15 51 -0.1 114 22 19:20 02:56 1 0.14 1917 945
The above times are UTC, which would agree with your time if it was given as
local Daylight Saving Time.
The object left the penumbra of the Earth's shadow at 02:05:35 UTC, at
azimuth 213 deg and elevation 59 deg, and culminated soon after at 62 deg
elevation, again in close agreement to your observation. The visual
magnitude would have been about -2.
Ted Molczan