| Date: | 1999-03-02 07:56:00 | |
| Sender: | Roger Wood <slr@gxvf.rgo.ac.uk (SLR at Herstmonceux)> | |
| Subject: | [SLR-Mail] No. 262: GLONASS Block 28 satellites - identifier confusion! | |
| Author: | Roger Wood | |
| Content: | ******************************************************************************** SLR Electronic Mail 1999-03-02 07:56:00 UTC Message No. 262 ******************************************************************************** Author: Roger Wood Subject: GLONASS Block 28 satellites - identifier confusion! GLONASS BLOCK 28 SATELLITES - IDENTIFIER CONFUSION! The purpose of this message is to warn SLR stations about inconsistencies which currently exist between published identifiers for Block 28 GLONASS satellites. Until this confusion is resolved we, at Herstmonceux, do not intend to produce IRVs for them from the CODE 3-day orbits. Recent SLRMAIL messages have given information about the cross-references between different GLONASS identifiers (SLRMAIL 218, Mike Pearlman reporting Richard Langley´s status table) and called for the SLR community to track the latest, Block 28, GLONASS satellites (SLRMAIL 252, John Degnan forwarding Werner Gurtner´s request for additional tracking). All three Block 28 GLONASS satellites from the 1998 December 30 launch are now on station and operational. Unfortunately the correspondence between the numbers allocated by the Russian Federation (Cosmos number, 3-digit GLONASS number and slot number in the orbit) and those from US Space Command (2-digit GLONASS number, COSPAR number and NORAD catalogue number) is not maintained consistently in all places where they are quoted. In particular the relationship between the GLONASS slot numbers and the numbers used by the SLR community (the 2-digit number used for identifying IRVs and the COSPAR number included in the normal point data files) has not yet been uniquely established. For example computing orbits from the NORAD two-line elements for the COSPAR numbers quoted by Werner Gurtner (following Richard Langley) for satellites 786, 784 and 779 puts them in slots 1, 8 and 7 respectively; but the evidence from the satellites themselves (CODE orbits) and the Russian Federation is that they are in slots 7, 8 and 1 respectively. Richard Langley has written to NASA and US Space Command pointing out the errors and is awaiting clarification. He will publish the definitive cross-references (updating the table of 1999 Jan 9 quoted by Mike Pearlman) as soon as he gets satisfactory replies. At that time we will immediately make available daily IRVs from the CODE orbits. From: slr@gxvf.rgo.ac.uk (SLR at Herstmonceux) ******************************************************************************** |