[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] - [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index]

Re: AO-10 Keps



At 11:27 AM 11/15/98 -0800, Paul Williamson wrote:
>At 08:34 AM 11/15/98 -0500, Stacey Mills wrote:
>>
>>Satellite: AO-10
>>Catalog number: 14129
>>Epoch time:     98 318.86783
>
>There's the problem, in the Epoch time.  That space between
>the year and the day number shouldn't be there in the AMSAT
>format.  Programs want to parse this as one big number, and
>then divide by 1000 to get the year number.  So this parses
>as "98" which looks like day number 98 of year 00.  That
>might be interpreted as 1900 or 2000, but it's wrong either way.

When I put these out, I wasn't aiming for full compatability with the AMSAT
format for automated updating.  I was just getting the basic information
across.  In fact it never dawned on me that someone would try to do an
automated update...  There is, for example, no "Element set", "Epoch rev",
or "Checksum" information included, which is part of the AMSAT element
"package", and is required by some/most programs.   You're correct that the
format of the epoch is not true AMSAT format....it's the way the epoch is
"presented" in the edit boxes in WISP.  If you "cut and paste" the entries,
for each line into the WISP update window, which is what I was doing,
having the space present makes it a bit easier. I don't know about Nova,
etc.  Sorry if this caused some confusion.

>>The initial set I posted
>>had a typo which set the value of decay to "0.0 e0", which, of course is
>>mathmatically equal to "1".
>
>Uh, no, I don't think so.  "0.0 e0" is an abbreviation for
>0.0 X 10^0 (zero point zero times ten to the power zero),
>which is equal to zero.  You might have to put the "e0"
>back in for some programs, depending on how smart
>they are about parsing this number.

Oops, I meant to type "e0, which of course is mathematically equal to one."
You're correct that 0.0 e0 = 0.  From what I've been told, however, some
programs don't handle "e0" appropriately and crash when it's entered,
apparently because they are incorrectly setting the decay value to "1".
.... I've not encountered this problem myself.  However, if the program
will accept "0.0" without and "e" that would solve the problem.



--  
 __________________________________________________________________________  
  Stacey E. Mills, W4SM    WWW: 	http://www.cstone.net/~w4sm/ham1.html 
   Charlottesville, VA	   PGP key:	http://www.cstone.net/~w4sm/key.asc    	
 __________________________________________________________________________


----
Via the amsat-bb mailing list at AMSAT.ORG courtesy of AMSAT-NA.
To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe amsat-bb" to Majordomo@amsat.org



AMSAT Top AMSAT Home