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

Re: AO-07: orbits 26397 & 26398

On Sun, 30 Jun 2002 14:09:52 -0700, Paul Williamson wrote:

> 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.

I got both formats when they were first posted after rediscovery, loaded
them into IT 1.50  without thinking of duplication and both are
displayed seperately, both show the same orbit number, sorry. ;-(

The epoch orbit No was then; 26223 showing Sat age as only 2107 days, or
5.77years, not allowing for leap years.
By adding the extra 100,000;126223 showed the age as 10084 days, or
27.62years, which equates to about September 1974, which is only about
four to six weeks out, take off a week for leapyears and it's even

       Alan. (ZL2VAL)

 Answers to High School exam questions;
 Q: What guarantees may a mortgage company insist on?
 A: If you are buying a house, it will insist you are well endowed.
-- Arachne V1.70;rev.3, NON-COMMERCIAL copy, http://arachne.cz/

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