Wrong TLE and wrong Catalog number for satellite MH-1

I cannot schedule a suitable observation of MH-1, because the TLE is deprecated (still prelaunch TLE almost a month old).

The correct NORAD catalog number is 59145.

Latest TLE (01/APR/2024 - 08:35Z):
1 59145U 24043AZ 24091.92157651 .00022698 00000-0 10905-2 0 9993
2 59145 97.4682 216.8632 0011385 179.9050 180.2188 15.18783978 4086

How are TLE updated in SatNOGS database?

Kind regards,

Hi @ct7afr,

For how it is done technically, unfortunately for now the TLE changes need an admin.

What we follow as community for a newly launched satellite the process follows usually these 3 steps:

  1. Preliminary TLE, from satellite team or other sources we publish the TLE in the forum, usually in the launch thread and from there the admin makes sure to add them in DB
  2. Generated/corrected TLE from several sources, again we publish them in the forum thread and again the admin adds them in DB
  3. After space-track.org TLE publication, we try to fit objects and we follow randomly or based on the best fit by adding suggestions in satellite entry for the “Followed NORAD ID” field. These suggestions are reviewed by admin based on the “citation” field and are approved/rejected. When approved the TLE will follow the chosen OBJECT/NORAD ID and will be automatically updated.
  4. Identification, when the satellite is identified with public evidence (observations etc), then users can suggest a change in satellite entry for the “NORAD ID” field and removing and number in the “Followed NORAD ID” entry. Again the suggestion will be reviewed based on the given citation for the evidence of identification.

We plan this process to be less admin oriented in the future, but for now the admin role is the bottleneck.

For MH-1 I’ve just added to follow 59145 based on your post and if we can verify with evidence its identification then we can move to identification in DB.

By the way we need also to verify the exact frequency for this satellite, as it is based in ITU range, so it may be wrong.

Let me know if something is not clear on the above or if you have any questions.


1 Like

Hi fredy,
Thank you for you response. Very clear to me. :slight_smile:
As for the catalog number, it is official from space-track.org. The satellite has already been confirmed and contacts have already been confirmed by Santa Maria spaceport in the Azores.
About the frequency, I have been in touch with people who is behind the satellite (CEIIA, Thales and DSTelecom), and all of them confirmed that the downlink is 2245 MHz. However, I don’t have (yet) any detail on the modulation.
Also, as per the MH-1 mission definition, it shall transmit (downlink) when the Azores are in sight. However, if in “emergency mode” (i.e., lack of contact Earth-to-Sat, in the last 36 hours), it transmits a beacon signal 5 seconds ON, 45 seconds OFF.
Again, thank you for your explanations.
73 de CT7AFR, Emmanuel.

1 Like

Thanks for the additional info! They are very useful! And I’m going to use them to complete the identification in SatNOGS DB for MH-1.

Please allow me to take this opportunity to say a couple of words about the identification process. A tl;dr is that no one is perfect and let me explain this and our approach. In the past there were cases of misidentification, for different reasons, in the popular sources (individuals or groups). Among others, we have also made mistakes. So in order to avoid them, we try with public evidence (when possible) or our observations to verify/adopt these identifications.

This isn’t always an easy task, especially when in many cases transmission frequencies or other details are not known publicly. To give you an example, in the Transporter 10 we didn’t expect any satellite at 400.500 MHz, and there are at least 4, which while we can say which object transmits which signal, without demodulation and decoding we can not make sure who is who. Another example from the same launch are the BRO satellites, while we can receive them at the expected frequency and we can demodulate their signals it is difficult to say who is who as demodulated packet don’t give us fully this information, also in this case decoding would be useful.

Just to be clear, I’m not saying we don’t trust at all the identification sources, but in each case we try to verify the identification process (hopefully with public data) as in the past there are cases where the process wasn’t valid (either on purpose or not). For example we have seen teams claiming objects, even in space-track.org, without providing any evidence of successful signal reception.

By the way, as LSF, for contributing to this field of SSA (Space Situational Awareness) in accordance with the Libre Space Manifesto, we develop SIDLOC, an ESA funded project, that aims to mitigate the localization and identification issues of artificial space objects. Anyone interested can read more about it in sidloc.org or SIDLOC - Libre Space Foundation. And of course we continue develop our current processes, to automate them and improve them.

Sorry for this huge text wall and again thanks for the opportunity you gave me to write these thoughts. Also I would like to thank once again all the station owner in SatNOGS Network and 3rd party contributors that provide data allowing us to use and analyze them and help with the SSA in an independent and open (source) way.


Thank you very much Fredy for the reference of the SIDLOC project. I added it to my bookmarks and will keep an eye on the developments. Who knows if some day I’ll be able to give my contribution somehow? :slight_smile:
About the main content of your message. I understand perfectly your concerns and agree totally with your statement. Don’t worry about the extension of your posts. I love the topic, so I don’t mind any text walls. Your writing is clear and objective.
Best regards,

1 Like