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

Re: AO-07: orbits 26397 & 26398



By golly, you are correct.  I went back and looked at my code in ORBITS III
and I had made that field large enough to hold a big number.  Don't know
why though.

Paul Williamson wrote:
> 
> At 07:44 PM 6/30/2002 +0000, rdwelch@swbell.net wrote:
> >I guess most of the tracking programs never dreamed of allowing for an
> >orbit number greater
> >than 99,999. :-)
> 
> Hey, don't blame the tracking programs. The limitation is in the NASA/NORAD
> 2-line element set format. There are only five columns allocated for
> "Revolution number at epoch" in the format definition.
> 
> The AMSAT format has no such limitation. It's an interesting question
> whether the AMSAT-format bulletins ought to contain the corrected number or
> the same number as the NASA-format bulletins.
> 
> 73  -Paul
> kb5mu@amsat.org
> 
> ----
> Via the amsat-bb mailing list at AMSAT.ORG courtesy of AMSAT-NA.
> To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe amsat-bb" to Majordomo@amsat.org

-- 
73, Roy -- W0SL

Internet: w0sl@amsat.org
Home Page: http://home.swbell.net/rdwelch
----
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