Laura Grego wrote: > I'm copying the release information below. As part of the > release, I was interviewed by the Associated Press, and the > reporter was very interested in amateur satellite observing. > I sent her as much information as I could from the public > realm. The story is a bit sensationalist, but I do hope you > feel you were represented faithfully. The following statement in the AP article almost certainly is incorrect: "Grego said satellite watchers had spotted Misty-2 even though it was disguised as space debris." We have never knowingly observed Misty 2 (aka USA 144 / 99028A / 25744). A few weeks after the launch, we began tracking an intrinsically bright object from that launch, in a 63.4 deg, 2700 x 3100 km orbit, that seemed like a reasonable candidate for the payload, so we assigned it to 99028A / 25744. Three years later, in 2002, it was discovered to have the characteristics of debris or a low mass decoy, through analysis of solar radiation pressure perturbations of its orbit. Here are the most relevant SeeSat-L posts: http://satobs.org/seesat/Aug-2002/0045.html http://satobs.org/seesat/Aug-2002/0075.html It is my opinion that the object probably is a decoy, and that Misty 2's orbit is similar to that of Misty 1, quasi 65 deg, between 700 km and 800 km, circular. I have heard it suggested that the debris/decoy object is in fact Misty 2, masquerading as debris, but that seems highly unlikely. A major problem with that theory is that the object would be required to make orbital manoeuvres simulating the effects of solar radiation pressure that we observe. I suppose that could be achieved, but what happens when it runs out of propellant or dies? It would be highly suspicious for the SRP perturbations to suddenly cease. Another theory I recall, suggests that Misty 2 is on the opposite side of the same orbit as its presumed decoy, presumably so that surveillance targets would be concealed only when in sight of the decoy. The problem with that theory is that the orbital period is just 148 min, and there may be several consecutive passes, which would require frequent concealment of surveillance targets, which seems impractical. One final point. We hobbyists should consider assigning a different designation to the decoy/debris object. I know it can be a pain to revise our many different personal databases, but there is a significant potential to create confusion by continuing to identify the object as 99028A / 25744, which is reserved for the primary payload. Regular readers of SeeSat-L who have followed developments over the years have not been confused, but others could easily be confused. Since the B designation was assigned to the Titan IVB 2nd stage, and since the object in question probably is an unacknowledged second payload, I suggest calling it 99028C / 25746. Ted Molczan ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subscribe/Unsubscribe info, Frequently Asked Questions, SeeSat-L archive: http://www.satobs.org/seesat/seesatindex.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Dec 07 2005 - 21:05:47 EST