RE: raduga decay

Ted Molczan (molczan@fox.nstn.ca)
Tue, 20 Aug 1996 15:35:40 -0400

Steve Bolton wrote:

>Having observed decay of Raduga 33 SL r2, some questions arise. This is the
>first decay I've seen.

I believe that most likely you did not see decay, but
arguably something as good or better. The object was
virtually at perigee when you observed, and probably
was experiencing a great deal of heating because it
was so low - about 100 km. I reached this conclusion
based upon the following Alan Pickup elset, posted to
Seesat-L yesterday:

Raduga 33 SL-12 r2
1 23797U 96010D   96233.01776407  .97557836  28856+0  16460-2 0 92774
2 23797  47.6011 201.6498 1165766  74.4749 298.0744 13.84811729  5380

The epoch was 00.25 UTC on 20 Aug 96, only minutes prior to your
obs. Based on the SGP model, and assuming 6371 km for the Earth's
radius, its perigee and apogee would have been about 100 km and 1807 km,
respectively, so I very much doubt it was decaying, but read on.

Below is an ephemeris for Saint John N.B. (45.28 N, 66.05 W):

20/ 8/96  00:00 - 01:00 UTC  J2000.0  EL >  1  Steve Bolton
Raduga 33 r    99996A   99996   Bull = %9277
SGP4   Age =   0.0 d   Unc =    0 s ( 50%)
Offset =   0.00 min

  TIME      %I   Mv     AZ  EL    R.A.   DEC   FE   VANG  RANGE   ALT
--------    --  ----   ---  --   -----  -----  --   ----  -----  -----
00:41:46    13   7.2   261   0   12:38   -5.4   7   0.08   1120    109
00:43:17    11   5.2   272  12   12:43   10.7   8   0.43    421    105
00:43:34     SHADOW    280  19   12:41   20.7   8   0.83    301    105
00:43:43     SHADOW    288  24   12:39   29.7   8   1.26    243    105
00:43:49     SHADOW    296  29   12:37   38.2   8   1.70    209    106
00:43:53     SHADOW    303  33   12:34   45.5   8   2.06    190    106
00:43:57     SHADOW    313  36   12:29   54.1   8   2.45    174    106
00:44:00     SHADOW    322  39   12:22   61.6   8   2.72    165    106
00:44:03     SHADOW    332  41   12:09   69.6   9   2.92    160    106
00:44:06     SHADOW    343  42   11:38   77.9   9   3.01    157    107
00:44:08     SHADOW    351  41   10:36   83.2   9   3.00    158    107
00:44:11     SHADOW      2  40   04:24   85.3   9   2.87    161    107
00:44:14     SHADOW     12  38   02:08   78.6  10   2.65    168    107
00:44:17     SHADOW     21  36   01:38   71.6  10   2.37    178    107
00:44:20     SHADOW     28  33   01:25   65.3  10   2.09    190    107
00:44:24     SHADOW     36  30   01:17   58.1  10   1.73    209    108
00:44:28     SHADOW     41  26   01:12   52.2  10   1.42    231    108
00:44:33     SHADOW     47  23   01:09   46.2  10   1.12    261    108
00:44:40     SHADOW     52  19   01:07   39.8  10   0.82    307    109
00:44:49     SHADOW     57  15   01:05   34.0  10   0.57    370    110
00:45:02     SHADOW     61  11   01:04   28.3  10   0.37    465    111
00:45:22     SHADOW     65   7   01:05   22.8  11   0.22    616    114
00:45:55     SHADOW     68   3   01:06   17.6  11   0.13    869    119
00:46:54     SHADOW     71   0   01:11   12.5  11   0.07   1327    131

The above is about 3 minutes earlier than your observed time, and it just
misses the bowl of the Big Dipper, which represents excellent accuracy
on Alan Pickup's part, given the incredibly high rate of decay.

The following ephemeris allows for the Earth's rotation during the three
minutes of prediction error:

  TIME      %I   Mv     AZ  EL    R.A.   DEC   FE   VANG  RANGE   ALT
--------    --  ----   ---  --   -----  -----  --   ----  -----  -----
00:44:54    13   7.2   263   0   12:37   -4.4   7   0.09   1116    108
00:46:22     SHADOW    274  11   12:39   11.3   8   0.42    442    105
00:46:40     SHADOW    282  18   12:35   21.6   8   0.81    315    105
00:46:49     SHADOW    290  23   12:31   30.1   8   1.20    258    106
00:46:55     SHADOW    297  27   12:26   38.1   8   1.58    224    106
00:47:00     SHADOW    306  31   12:19   46.6   8   1.98    200    106
00:47:04     SHADOW    315  34   12:10   54.8   8   2.32    185    106
00:47:07     SHADOW    323  36   11:58   61.6   8   2.55    176    107
00:47:10     SHADOW    333  38   11:37   69.0   9   2.73    171    107
00:47:13     SHADOW    343  38   10:52   76.3   9   2.81    168    107
00:47:16     SHADOW    353  38   08:47   82.2   9   2.79    169    107
00:47:19     SHADOW      3  37   04:46   82.0   9   2.67    173    107
00:47:22     SHADOW     12  35   02:52   76.6  10   2.47    180    108
00:47:25     SHADOW     20  33   02:10   70.5  10   2.23    190    108
00:47:28     SHADOW     27  31   01:50   64.8  10   1.97    202    108
00:47:32     SHADOW     34  28   01:36   58.1  10   1.65    221    108
00:47:37     SHADOW     41  24   01:27   51.2  10   1.32    248    109
00:47:43     SHADOW     47  21   01:20   44.7  10   1.01    285    109
00:47:50     SHADOW     52  17   01:16   38.9  10   0.75    331    110
00:48:00     SHADOW     57  14   01:13   33.0  10   0.52    401    111
00:48:14     SHADOW     61  10   01:10   27.4  10   0.34    503    113
00:48:36     SHADOW     65   6   01:10   21.9  10   0.20    669    116
00:49:13     SHADOW     69   3   01:11   16.6  11   0.11    954    122
00:50:19     SHADOW     72  -1   01:15   11.4  11   0.06   1465    137

Having corrected for Earth's rotation, the above places the object
well inside the bowl of the Big Dipper moments after 00:47 UTC.

But most important - the object was in shadow! So you could only have
seen it because it was glowing! Of course in your earlier message
you stated:

>Through binoculars a 3-4 degree trail was visible.

which indicates that it was also losing some mass!

>Questions.
>1. This event should have been widly observed from central Canada and NE US.
>  Any other posts/ sightings ?

The glowing probably was confined to very near the perigee, and you
had a ring-side seat. Given the bright twilight, casual observers
probably would have missed it.

>2. If the STSPLUS plots are correct, this object survived a very low pass on
>the rev prior . Possible?- or is STSPLUS not reliable.

Yes it did. I believe that STSPLUS uses the older SGP model, instead
of the current SGP4 model. SGP produces nearly identical results to
SGP4, except under conditions of extreme drag.

>3. If it did survive the pass on rev 538- might the dimming I observed
>represent the sat climbing out of dense atmosphere again? Raduga's next pass
>was not attempted by me- but was favorible for N. A. observers.

I guess no other SeeSaters were looking.

>Finally, for those not lucky enough to see a decay, keep trying -it is spectacular

Well, I am not certain that it will survive until tonight,
but here is the latest of Alan Pickup's excellent elsets:

Raduga 33 SL-12 r2
1 23797U 96010D   96233.29966095 1.31849363  55988+0  18869-2 0 92777
2 23797  47.5783 200.3952 0896799  75.6602 294.1224 14.48531738  5428

Clear skies!
Ted Molczan