Regarding Observation 4835281 … auto-scheduler shows this as a good signal trace observation, together with good data. Yet FOX-1B observations 4835286, 4835276, 4831170 and 4831165 are classified as failed; yet all having good signals but without data!
The question is why (?), when using all the same station equipment and showing relatively high passes.
Additionally, most auto-scheduled passes with other satellites show as failed, and yet the vast majority have good signal traces, albeit without any data…
There appears to be no consistency in the software evaluating passes, when the observation parameters are similar.
Any thoughts on this please?
Rgds, Roger M0ROJ #2122
The observation linked has no signal from FOX-1B. As seen by the doppler on it that is why its classified as should be classified as bad.
Same is with 4835286 4835276 4831165
None of them have Fox-1B present so they all should be marked as bad.
1 Like
As a follow-up to this, the SatNOGS network will automatically vet any observations that have received data packets as Good.
However, there is always a possibility of a decoder producing false-positive data packets. I believe that is what occurred with the first observation linked. The other observations do not contain any valid signal from Fox-1B. The line in the waterfall looks to be local noise of some sort.
As for observations automatically vetted as ‘Failed’ - this occurs when the length of the audio and the length of the waterfall (both in seconds) differ by too much. This usually occurs when a station cannot keep up with the samples from the SDR, and drops them (‘over-runs’).
In your case, I see you are running an Airspy, and at a 10 MHz sample rate. Unless you are running SatNOGS on a x86 machine, it is likely you are getting sample overruns, resulting in these failed observations. Not even a Raspberry Pi 4 can reliably keep up with this kind of sample rate.
1 Like