Adding a Satellite to GPredict, Need Help

Hello,

I am attempting to add a satellite to GPredict via local files (rather than acquiring it online, for example), as a means to test theoretical TLE data. However, when a new module is created that tries to track the test satellite, it crashes the program. Here are the entries in the “1.sat,” and the “satellites.dat” files, which have been put in the appropriate places in the file system.

image

Is there additional information that needs to be input into the program somewhere, or did I make a mistake in entering the data into the existing files?

Thanks,

Alex Copley

Hi Alex

You don’t need to add it to satellites.dat since that file is only intended for distribution of initial data for new users.

I note that your TLE data is different in the two files and seem to be mall formed in the first case. Instead of screenshots, please copy and paste the actual data as preformatted text so that we can check what is wrong. However, first please make sure your data is consistent with the TLE specification since the porser in Gpredict is not 100% bullet proof.

Apologies for the long delay in responding to this topic. It was, indeed, the TLE being malformed that resulted in the error. Upon correcting it, the satellite loaded in correctly, and worked properly.

Thanks for the help!

Hi all,

I am trying something similar and I am not getting anywhere.
I want to load TLEs from different epochs of the same satellite. For this purpose I have downloaded the TLEs of the different epochs from Celestrak. Unfortunately, it is not quite clear to me how I can now import them with GPredict. I have tried to add the TLEs to the satellites.dat file. Here is a sample entry that I added:

[190407]
VERSION=1.1
NAME=NOAA 54
NICKNAME=NOAA 54           
TLE1=1 33591U 09005A   19096.57913686  .00000019  00000-0  35673-4 0  9993
TLE2=2 33591  99.1768  85.9477 0013287 220.5545 139.4637 14.12342799523585

Then I added the number in the brackets to the noaa.cat file. The number seems to be unused currently.
Is this the right way?

Thanks,
Fabian