RE: Sputnik40 TLEs

Philip Chien (
Sun, 9 Nov 1997 19:34:03 -0400

>On Wed, 5 Nov 1997, Jeff Hunt wrote:
>> Only speculation on my part, but why would the international designation
>> Progress M-36 (97058) be applied to Sputnik 40? I realize it was delivered
>> on M-36, but why not a Mir international designation since it was launched
>> from Mir during the EVA 3?

JAY RESPLER <> said:

>It originally left earth on Progress.  After launch, it was transferred
>to Mir.  It makes sense to have id be related to original launch.

The problem with this logic is that it contradicts what has been done
before.  There have been a couple of ISKRA satellites hand ejected from
Salyut 7, and the GFZ-1 satellite (1986 017JE) which was hand-ejected from
Mir.  In both cases the 'parent' spacecraft designation was used for the
international designation.

>Jonathan Space Report shows 58C = Sputnik.
>Nov  3 0405   Sputnik 40                     Mir,LEO          Demo       58C

Craig Cholar said:

>OIG has named 24958 (97058C) "Sputnik Jr" in their thirty.tle file, so
>that confirms Vladimir Agapov's previous post.  Anyone else think the Jr
>(Junior) name is just a little *too* cute?

Not just cute but confusing.  The term 'Junior' is rarely used outside of
the United States.

The "actual" name is Spoutnik-40.  But that's just the French spelling for
'Sputnik' which of course is the Russian word for fellow traveller.

I've seen the name Sputnik 2 - which is clearly incorrect because of the
ambiguity with the *original* Sputnik 2 with Laika aboard (1957 2A) as well
as other unofficial names.

NASA TV showed a replay of Pavel Vinogradov tossing the satellite overboard
during the spacewalk.  My initial thought was 'well there's another piece
of space debris' ;-)

According to the designers the batteries are expected to last about two
weeks.  After their depleted I would guess that the satellite would remain
in space for another year or two.

Philip Chien [M1959.05.31/31.145//]