Wayne Hughes (hughes@dogwood.botany.uga.edu) wrote: > UNKNOWN possibly 990907/90907 if so then essentially on path > predicted by 16 day-old elset but 2 minutes late (I was after > all looking for it). Compare to observation of same(?) satellite > 24 Aug 2000 which was 3.5 minutes early. I believe that those time differences between two nights, based on the same elset, could not be the same object ... I think. > I'm using the 90907 "norad" id just to link it to 990907, but > making up my own "international designation": Using the convention that for object 90007 yielded the designation 00-653A (unknown "A" discovered on the 153rd day of 2000), 90907 would be 99-752A (unknown "A" discovered on the 252nd day of 1999 -- Sept. 9 [unless there was another unknown discovered that day]). Similarly, object 90006, discovered on April 5, 2000, would be 00-595A. However, I'm not sure a consensus was reached on using that system of designation numbering, ... and there's still the matter of determining and settling on pseudo-catalog numbers.... Ed Cannon - ecannon@mail.utexas.edu - Austin, Texas, USA ----------------------------------------------------------------- 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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Aug 26 2000 - 01:08:18 PDT