Re: chronology of designation of in OIG

From: Igor Lissov (
Date: Mon Oct 01 2001 - 15:33:02 EDT

  • Next message: Ed Cannon: "Re: A dozen geosats"

    > May be they register A for the first object they detect and identify, B
    > for the second, etc...
    > In fact, that result should depend of the object position in respect
    > with space surveillance sensors able to pick it?
    > François
    This tends to go offtopic but...
    SPACECOM & OIG are very much goofy on designations.
    Not only they give arbitrary NORAD No. and International
    Designations to payloads in a multiple launch.
    Not only they take a time to sort out how many different
    objects do they have and what object has which No./ID.
    Let's take three objects from launch 2000-039. Two has
    decayed: a rocket body whose characteristics were well
    known beforehands and a smaller satellite, MITA. The larger
    one that is still in orbit, CHAMP, features totally different
    decay rate. In several days after the launch in July 2000,
    CHAMP and MITA diverged, and after that they could
    rarely be found in one place in the sky.
    After four weeks of thoughts, on day 2000-229 SPACECOM & OIG
    somehow decided that CHAMP (main payload) would be known
    as 26405, and MITA as 26404. Well; nevertheless, they managed to
    assign at least one wrong ID to their elsets for days 2000-237, 244,
    251, 265, 267, 270, 276, 293, 300, 305, 307, 314, 319, 321, 356,
    2001-004, 006, 011, 039, 060 and 067!
    So the conclusion: in a multiple launch, don't believe NORAD No. and
    IntDes at all.
    Igor Lissov
    Unsubscribe from SeeSat-L by sending a message with 'unsubscribe'
    in the SUBJECT to

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 01 2001 - 15:50:44 EDT