In my experience, there isn't currently a good solution for this, especially for amateurs, hobbyists, or small commercial operators. These groups often fly small satellites on rideshare missions. For smallsat rideshare, there are a so many uncertainties that removing tracking uncertainty is really important
- Is my satellite dead-on-arrival (DOA)?
- If my satellite isn't DOA, is it surviving in space?
- Did my antennas deploy?
- Is my spacecraft communications system functioning properly on orbit?
- Is my ground station functioning properly at my spacecraft's frequency?
- Is my link closing? Directly overhead? At the horizon?
- Where is my satellite? Which of the satellites deployed from the rideshare is mine?
On the last point, I first thought the official TLEs would be organized in deployment order, but they aren't. While the mass is definitely known, the drag coefficient probably isn't, and the density of the atmosphere the satellite flies through at the correct point in time definitely isn't well characterized. As a result, the order of the satellites in orbit may not match the order of deployment.
With so many uncertainties, reducing the uncertainty around satellite tracking is really important, especially for rideshare missions. The best way to do that, is to begin attempting communications immediately after launch, when the satellites are still relatively close together. That way, you can point to one and be fairly confident that you're pointing to all of them. As days pass, the satellites separate and the total search area becomes unmanageable.
I've been involved in two separate CubeSat launches so far and both times we have been given state vectors after launch. I was loosely involved in the BYU PICs launch operations (I had graduated and left the team before) and my company, Care Weather, recently launched it's first satellite, Hatchling Veery. I'll include a few examples at the end of this post. Both times, immediately after launch, we manufactured TLEs. Both times, our TLEs had errors due to inane complexities in the definitions of the coordinate systems or epochs used.
Everyone I know involved in satellite communications produces TLEs from state vectors between launch and issuance of official TLEs. On the ELaNa XX mission with Virgin Orbit, we had an extensive email chain as people tried to iron out issues with their TLE calculation and the SatNogs forum was sharing manufactured TLEs for early tracking as well.
There is a lot of wasted effort and inefficient collaboration at this point in the process and it contributes to space debris by resulting in some satellites to never be identified. The BYU team actually had confirmation that PIC-A and/or PIC-B was not DOA as the satellites' camera flash was seen by the rocket camera. However, the PICs team dealt with all of these uncertainties (and more) and was unable to make contact in the early stage. They are still trying to make contact, but more than half of the ELaNa XX satellites were never identified, so there's like only a 25% chance that they're looking in the right spot. Combine that with most passes being low to the horizon and the chance of contact being made now, even if the satellites are still operational, is slim.
Here are a couple examples of state vectors as given by the the launch provider on each mission. There is no standard on state vector contents, so some were easier to work with than others, but some aspect of the delivery created headache for TLE generation on both missions.
Virgin Orbit ELaNa XX
The polar cube team shared their state vectors on the SatNogs forum right after deployment.
Rocket Lab "They Go Up So Fast"
Rocket Lab gave us their official TLEs shortly after deployment. They had given us predicted state vectors and a trajectory analysis document long before the launch.