I think if I asked "joe public" to describe to me what was meant by...... "It was rolling and tumbling and [its gyration] wasn't always the same from one orbit to another," I'd get a different answer. Its only my opinion of course , but I get the impression this was yet another attempt to big up the situation that presented itself to the Pentagon and to vindicate the intercept.. As I have said before , the destruction of 193 was a brilliant demonstration of technical know how , impressive to say the least . However we are wandering into political territory here , which is off limits. John ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ted Molczan" <ssl3molcz@rogers.com> To: <seesat-l@satobs.org> Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2008 1:33 PM Subject: RE: USA was unstable , rolling and tumbling ! > John Locker wrote: > >> I saw it a number of occassions at quite high mag , and also >> through the veiwfinder and I saw no evidence of flashing , >> although it was on one of those obs brighter than expected. >> >> If you look at the image captured by Paul a few days before >> destruction , there's no eveidence there of anything tumbling >> wildly as the statement from Hicks seems to suggest.Indeed it >> was seen by a number of list members in those last few days >> and I dont recall anyone suggesting it was tumbling. >> And yet the Hicks statement would give the impression that >> for the six weeks prior to intercept , the thing was going haywire ! > > I find that quote (below) insufficient to support the inference that > Admiral > Hicks meant it was tumbling wildly or going haywire; he was talking about > stability on a time scale of at least one revolution, so he could have > meant > that it was rotating slowly: > > http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=aerospacedaily& > id=news/ASAT032408.xml > > <<< "[The dead satellite] was not stable," Hicks says. "It was rolling and > tumbling and [its gyration] wasn't always the same from one orbit to > another, > which added to the technical challenge. We tried for six weeks to see what > was > predictable about what it was doing each orbit, and we just couldn't do > it." >>> > > Although the object was generally observed to be steady in brightness, > irregular > variations were reported on a handful of occasions; however, those effects > could > have been due to changing illumination as it moved relative the observer. > > 0605701201807012417453953 01 12154540 +55132 1 5 +4 +5 > I > 0605701267507030805264480 010 12134255 +82437 20 5 +1 +2 > I > 0605701256307072921534325 01 12034870 +630288 30 4 +1 +4 > I > 0605701201808021818550344 01 12043408 -28284 1 5 -1 +3 > I > > UK format: http://www.satobs.org/position/UKformat.html > > 29651 06 057A 4353 P 20080105164846400 17 75 2239271+677540 56 I+020 10 > 29651 06 057A 4353 P 20080105164858100 17 75 0041137+613880 56 I+015 10 > > IOD format: http://www.satobs.org/position/IODformat.html > > Ted Molczan > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Subscribe/Unsubscribe info, Frequently Asked Questions, SeeSat-L archive: > http://www.satobs.org/seesat/seesatindex.html > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subscribe/Unsubscribe info, Frequently Asked Questions, SeeSat-L archive: http://www.satobs.org/seesat/seesatindex.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Mar 30 2008 - 13:28:53 UTC