Topicality, TLEs desired, vulgar names, Top 10
Walter Nissen (dk058@cleveland.Freenet.Edu)
Tue, 4 Jun 1996 16:17:12 -0400
Recently there have been casual mentions of flaming and off-topic posting,
which might be misinterpreted to suggest that they might somehow be
acceptable. Just so there is no confusion, both of these are unacceptable
on SeeSat-L. Flaming is, as far as I can tell, primarily a Usenet
phenomenon. Here on SeeSat-L, the virtues of earnestness and productive
affect, striving toward a visual observing goal, are the hallmarks of
acceptability. There are other fora on the net for anger and
destructiveness.
Topicality is a constant problem, at least for me. Off-topic posting has
to be unacceptable, like the camel's nose, because, once it starts, who is
to say where it will end. First someone asks for a hint for a crossword
puzzle clue, a five-letter word for satellite. Next thing you know,
somebody is organizing and operating and discussing disagreements about a
5000-entrant worldwide "Clu-by-Net" crossword puzzle championship, with a
traffic of 800 messages per day, complete with self-righteous whining
that "this is a really good place to sponsor a contest, who are you to
decide which crossword puzzle posts are appropriate?". I focus on the
terms
visual, observing, Earth satellite
when I have some doubt. Topics here should relate to all of these. This
isn't sci.space.tech, nor sci.astro, nor sci.space.policy, nor rec.radio,
nor biz.profit, and certainly not talk.politics.misc. Not even the
Shuttle elements mailing list nor Jonathan's mailing list nor HearSat-L.
But some topics that belong in those places, and others, will sometimes
infringe on topics here. If it is concise, has some relevance,
(hopefully, is newsy and informative), and fades away rapidly, then it has
a much better chance of being viewed as a contribution, rather than a
nuisance. Often the appropriate way to handle a marginal topic is to post
a brief item announcing another resource, such as an ongoing discussion in
another forum.
Many Seesat-L participants deserve thanks for their forbearance in staying
on topic. By-and-large, the topicality here is excellent, and many of the
marginal contributions have had a good bit of merit. Also, a really good
discussion, especially one that has no other comfortable home, productive
all the way, can occasionally render a strict interpretation of topicality
irrelevant. Jim Scotti talking here about observing asteroids is in a
completely different league from the cranks who regularly express their
incontinent egos upon the canvas of sci.astro.
Two nuisances I've noticed occasionally on SeeSat-L are over-quoting and
.sig files with much contentless content. This is a mailing list, not a
newsgroup. Recipients can be assumed to have received earlier messages.
Two lines is often the ideal length for a quote. We even have a real-time
archive so anyone who really wants a previous message can readily obtain
it. Four lines is the netiquette maximum for .sig files. I don't pretend
that longer ones are never appropriate, but it has to be pretty good stuff
to justify sending out hundreds of copies every time you make a post,
especially if you do so frequently. All these bytes, wonderful and empty
alike, have to be transmitted, stored, forwarded and archived.
Jim Varney writes:
> I QuickSat all night and I sleep all day
Pretty darn funny.
Elements for objects of special interest are among the most interesting
and eagerly sought kinds of information that appear on SeeSat-L. I am
sure I speak for many when I thank those of you who occasionally post
them. I hope also that you will keep in mind that the most useful format
for elements seems to be the TLE. Big lumps of TLEs (or anything else)
should go to the FTP site or the Web. Neil Clifford has been very
co-operative in this regard. I appreciate that.
Jay Respler writes:
> >Comments: Sputnik 29 (also known as Sputnik 22)
> How can it be both?
I noticed long ago that people seem to spend a great deal of energy
chasing down vulgar names (I call them vulgar, rather than common, in
hopes of discouraging newbies from expecting too much from them).
Myself, I've all but given up trying to sort them out.
These names all describe the same object:
10820 78 42A AMS 3 = DMSP B5D1-3 = DMSP F3
So do these: 78042A, 78- 42 A, 1978-042A, etc., etc.
Kosmos is Cosmos is C. is Cos is C* is K. Intercosmos 24 is Activnya.
Copernicus is OAO 3. ISIS-X is Explorer 31 is Direct Measurement Explorer
is DME A. And don't you forget it. Early Bird is Intelsat-1. Aureole is
Oreol, or something like that. GRIDSPHERE 1 is LCS 4. Sich is the same
as Okean. But don't you dare get the numbers confused. Ditto for Tiros
and NOAA. EGP is Ajisai. Unfulfilled expectation is the greatest cause
of unhappiness.
I continue to support the notion that at least the SPACECOM catalog #, the
COSPAR ID and the most popular vulgar name should be provided whenever
possible.
Phil Chien writes:
> here's my [list of] top ten visual satellites
> Mir
> DoD-1
> Hubble
> Shuttle
> LDEF
> Intelsat 6-3 (of course only visible to the naked eye while it was in its
> "parking" orbit)
> Eureca - one rare case where I've seen a satellite on the ground, in orbit,
> and after it was retrieved.
> SEDS-2
> Lacrosee 1
> TSS-1R
Speaking of vulgar names, is DoD-1 the same as USA 89? Or an earlier one?
Aren't LDEF, Eureca, SEDS-2 and TSS-1R a bit difficult to spy these days?
Cheers.
Walter Nissen dk058@cleveland.freenet.edu
---
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Lord Acton