Observations vetting - Need for a reform


Thank you. As an example of “hmmm, that’s interesting”, I compared a good Fox-1C observation (https://network.satnogs.org/observations/651781/ - note the distinctive “Foxtail” on the waterfall as the telemetry signal start) vs. https://network.satnogs.org/observations/629669/ . While I haven’t checked if Fox-1C was visible, I’m confident my station copied Fox-1C while not seeing the expected signal from Diwata-2. So a successful observation of something but not of the intended/expected target.


One more instance of a “successful unscheduled” observation: https://network.satnogs.org/observations/671639/ Target was the CAS-4B transponder (successful with other observations and this was a low elevation in a less-than-great direction) but it did capture what looks like AO-95’s telemetry beacon. Marked it as “bad” because I did not capture what I set out to capture.


Leaving this here: