Warning on Iridium vulgar names, terminology, numbers
Walter Nissen (dk058@cleveland.Freenet.Edu)
Mon, 20 Oct 1997 11:58:36 -0400 (EDT)
Vulgar names have been a huge pain for a very long time. (As bad as the
alt/az vs. az/el confusion).
The Irdm numeration has been rather confusing when compared to the
assignment of catalog numbers. (By the way, the column heading "CAT #" is
shorter than the obsolete "NORAD #").
Now, I notice a new threat(?) has emerged. Ted Molczan's file at Mike
McCants' site, the SatSit Report from OIG, and Alan Pickup's file all
agree on one set of numbers. See appendix 1.
The current version of THIRTY.HD at OIG gives a different set of numbers
for these catalog numbers:
24944 IRDM 27
24945 IRDM 28
24946 IRDM 29
24947 IRDM 30
24948 IRDM 31
24949 IRDM 32
24950 IRDM 33
I would have analyzed the COSPAR IDs, were there a canonic form for their
expression in consistent use.
I have no idea which are correct. It just makes me want to throw up my
hands.
Meanwhile, I will restate my own posture. I try to give all three names
(cat #, COSPAR ID and vulgar name), whenever reasonably possible. (People
are widely forgiven naked references to "Mir"). When there are known
ambiguities, it is better to provide the elset used in observing the
object.
Regards.
Walter Nissen dk058@cleveland.freenet.edu
-81.8637, 41.3735, 256m elevation
---
Darkness has its place -- in the night sky. Look into it.
---
Appendix 1:
Molczan, 971017:
24792 IRDM 8
24793 IRDM 7
24794 IRDM 6
24795 IRDM 5
24796 IRDM 4
24836 IRDM 14
24837 IRDM 12
24838 IRDM 10
24839 IRDM 9
24840 IRDM 13
24841 IRDM 16
24842 IRDM 11
24869 IRDM 15
24870 IRDM 17
24871 IRDM 18
24872 IRDM 20
24873 IRDM 21
24903 IRDM 26
24904 IRDM 25
24905 IRDM 24
24906 IRDM 23
24907 IRDM 22
24925 IRDM SIM1
24926 IRDM SIM2
24944 IRDM 29
24945 IRDM 32
24946 IRDM 33
24947 IRDM 27
24948 IRDM 28
24949 IRDM 30
24950 IRDM 31
24965 IRDM 19
24966 IRDM 37
24967 IRDM 36
24968 IRDM 35
24969 IRDM 34