Talk:Geostationary orbit

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Physics (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Spaceflight (Rated Start-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

From Wikipedia:Votes for deletion page[edit]


I was redircted here looking for GSO - a type of inorganic crystal used as a scintillator in nuclear medicine imaging (SPECT, PET, etc.) GSO is an abbreviation of cerium-doped gadolinium oxyorthosilicate.

I added an entry at GSO based on your description; thanks. Wmahan. 18:20, 14 September 2005 (UTC)


Number of Satellites[edit]

How many geostationary satellites are up there? Do they stay there when they cease to function? Is it a stable orbit that could eventually cause other geostationary satellites to risk collosion from large numbers accumulating?

I don't know the numbers off the top of my head, but there are a number of satellite catalog pages that should be able to tell you. They do indeed stay up when they cease to function (it's only in low orbit that you have enough air resistance for orbits to decay). I seem to recall that organizations with satellites were encouraged to move them either into parking orbits or an earth-intersecting orbit when their useful life ended, but I don't think this happens for all satellites. As for collisions, the main risk isn't satellites themselves, but bits of metal and other debris that's kicked up as a result of micrometeorite impacts. This is discussed in more detail at space debris. --Christopher Thomas 20:08, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
There are several hundred "Active" geostationary satellites. The Inter-Agency Debris Coordination Committee (most international space orgs) develops guidelines for end-of-life procedures. In a nutshell, move it above GEO by at least 200 km (US govt moves up by +300km) and then remove all potential energy storage (e.g. drain batteries, vent fuel, etc). —Taka2007 14:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
A GEO must be maintained with somewhere in the ballpark of 50-63m/s of delta-v per year depending on how accurately you want your spacecraft to stay on station. If a GEO spacecraft dies on station (that is, without a deorbit maneuver to a graveyard orbit; to the best of my knowledge, no GEO spacecraft has ever deorbited to an Earth entry and I know it would be less delta-v to crash it into the Moon) it soon leaves GEO because of perturbations from the Moon and Sun. It will stay in the ballpark of GEO for at least several hundred years. If I remember correctly, lunar perturbation tends to raise GEO spacecraft orbits, so it will wind up in the standard graveyard area Taka2007 described within a couple of years. Also, modern spacecraft are engineered so that their solar panels degrade to a minimum payload power specification at about the same time they run out of orbit maintenance propellant. This isn't "dead" by anyone's definition, but without enough power to run the transponders and no ability to stay where the thousands of bolted-down rooftop satellite dishes are pointed at in the sky, it can't make money. Older (1965-73ish) spinners weren't totally useless in this condition, but a modern body-stabilized spacecraft with solar wings and high-gain dishes also loses attitude control when it runs out of propellant (not instantly, as its reaction wheels take a couple weeks to spin up to their limits), so it'll die pretty fast. Also, unlike in the 1960s when your typical satellite customer had a 20m steerable antenna and knew how to use it, the typical modern satellite customer might not even remember where on his roof the 16in dish has been bolted. So back in the day, a satellite designed to maintain GEO for three years was often still being used 20 years after it was launched. These days, the satellite is designed to maintain GEO for 20 years, but becomes quite useless once it can't (that's part of the reason why they've grown from 50kg to 6,000kg, but the big reason is that the receiving stations have shrunk even faster... you could probably throw a modern satellite receiver about the same distance as a 1960s station's diameter.) As for the collision hazard, "Space is Big" - Stardock Software, Galactic Civilizations 2, 2007. Low orbit has more spacecraft in a smaller space moving over twice as fast and over a far wider variety of inclinations; it's a bit like comparing the Indianapolis 500 to a demolition derby, except that you'd have to put the demolition beaters on the Indianapolis oval and the formula racers in the demolition ring to model the speed difference. I'd expect several dozen LEO collisions to occur before the first one near GEO was detected. Featherwinglove (talk) 18:36, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Well...that's a seven-eight year old conversation, so I'm not sure anyone really reads them. On the other hand, you sound like you really know exactly what you're talking about, so maybe you could expand the corresponding section of this article. — Reatlas (talk) 04:56, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Use of Newton's first law is completely bogus[edit]

Orbiting satellites are not under the influence of balanced forces, and one can *never* balance centripetal force with centrifugal force. The derivation is numerically correct, but conceptually flawed. The derivation should begin with Fc = FG, giving the source of the accelerating centripetal force.

Phillychuck 03:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)phillychuck, Physicist

Indeed, this explanation is completely wrong: it appears to suggest that the satellite is subjected to two equal and opposite forces (which it is not, of course). If that were the case, the resultant force would be null and the satellite would pursue its trajectory in a straight line! --Michel M Verstraete 22:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC).
This appears to be a question of terminology. If you set up the problem using polar coordinates, you get equal and opposite radial forces, resulting in the second derivative of radius (radial acceleration) being zero. This is the way orbits are usually described in high school textbooks. In undergrad texts (in engineering, at least), the same type of coordinate system is used to derive Kepler's laws for elliptical orbits, as it's far easier to do that in polar coordinates than in Cartesian coordinates. --Christopher Thomas 06:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The appropriate derivation is F=ma, using vectors, where F and a constantly point to the center of mass of the object being orbited. F is Newton's gravitational force = mMG/r^2. a can be simplified to a circular orbit, since that is what we are discussing with geostationary objects. a=vt^2/r. The only reason it remains in orbit is because there is an initial velocity tangent to the acceleration. There is a certain altitude where the angular velocity necessary for a circular orbit path coincides with the angular velocity of the earth and thus the object in orbit appears to be stationary over the same spot on earth for its entire orbit. This is a geostationary orbit. It must be directly over the equator for this to work. If it is off to the north or south, the object will still be geosynchronous, but its ground track will move north and south along a line centered on the equator. If the orbit is also slightly non-circular, its ground track will resemble a figure-8 centered on the equator. "Geostationary" is indeed a special case of a Geosynchronous Earth Orbit (GEO). I vote that the topics be merged under Geosynchronous Earth Orbit.--Someone

Even a circular inclined orbit has a figure-8 ground track, since the eastward component of the satellite's velocity varies with latitude. —wwoods 17:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

It's very easy to apply F=ma for a circular orbit, and less confusing than introducing the noninertial centrifugal force. I rewrote the section accordingly. Use of the first law is indeed bogus, but the second law is what we need. --Mike 18:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

GeoStationary & GeoSynchronus Orbits Merged[edit]

Geostationary and geosynchronus is not the same thing. It is two different things. This is an applied scientific fact.

The two articles should be merged and redirected to an article called Sattelite Orbit Types. This article should reassemble the different articles into Types of Orbits.

In fact, they are really types of orbit and mergance of article will just make things easier and clearer of access.

Here is a simple graphic explaning the basics of Geostationary and Geosynchronus with a fixed earth example. Just figure it out as if the earth was rotating, making Geostationary sattelites still in movement.

  • Sirius Sattelites : Geosynchronus
  • XM Satellites : Geostationary

What exactly is the difference between geosynchronous and geostationary? Is geostationary a special case of geosynchronous...or vice versa? (talk) 05:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

GEO is sub-set of GSO[edit]

Geostationary orbits are a sub-set of GSO. It's a GSO orbit with zero inclination.

I've been involved in space operations for 9 years. I've operated a constellation of comm satellites for 3 plus years. As much as some people won't like it, we used geostationary 90% of the time to describe our orbits, even though they had a non-zero inclination (~1°). I would, however, have a problem with calling GSO orbits with significantly larger inclinations, GEO orbits. Not sure where I would draw the line though.

Possibly look at where the drop off in number of satellites at that altitude (i.e., if there is a significant decrease in the number of satellites below an inclination of i°, then that would be the switch over between GEO and GSO).

Of course, this reminds me of the whole debate about Pluto. I don't have much of a problem with the demotion of Pluto. My self-arguments were that there needed to be some scientific dividing line. That is completely the opposite of the fuzzy justification I gave above for dividing between GEO and GSO. —Taka2007 14:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I think these should be merged, leaving GSO as the final artilce. Bearian 15:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

GEO is sub-set of GSO: I agree[edit]

I agree that the geostationary orbits are (merely) a subset of GSO, but they are a very important subset with unique and practically valuable properties for satellites, so a separate page seems to be merited. Martin 11:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. However, in my experience, "geostationary" is commonly used for a lot of satellites that are actually "geosynchronous". I'd be willing to bet that if I asked some of the operators I used to work with what the difference between geostationary and geosynchronous was, they'd be stumped. We very rarely used the term "geosynchronous" even though the satellites we were dealing with were not geostationary. However, the satellites we dealt with had an inclination less than 1°, thus the figure eight ground track was very small. Still we probably should be trying to get people to use the correct terminology. - Taka2007 17:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
The IADC is not consistent with their use of GEO. Their Protection Manual, the IADC defines GEO as geosynchronous orbit. In a Support Document they also define the Geosynchronous Region as Geostationary orbit ±200 km and ± 15°. - Taka2007 19:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

GEO is sub-set of GSO[edit]

There are articles on Wikipedia that have GEO as Geostationary and GSO as Geosynchronous and there are others with the opposite abreviations. Which is correct?

For what it's worth, I think these are foolish abbreviations to use. Just go with g-synch and g-stat.  :) Avraham 02:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


OK, first of all, let me say I agree with basically what everyone has said so far. Yes, yes, yes, the two are not the same (although it's true that common usage is not really picky about their usages. Even physics students often used g-synch as a fancy name for g-stat. Compare naueous v. sick or infer v. imply) however that is not the issue. The issue with a merger is (1) is this article part of a broader category? and (2) if so, is it big enough to stand on its own? I think it's clear to everyone here that the answer to both those questions is yes. OK, fine, usage is sloppy, but we all know the two are seperate. However, we also all know that (a) g-stat (or near g-stat) is an extremely important case of g-synch and (b) (though this is more controversial) the Geostationary orbit article is beefy enough to stand on its own, and has potential for a lot more growth. Because everyone seems to agree with these points, and because the leaning from more recent posts seems to heavily favor my conclusion, I am removing the merge tags. Hope I don't get killed... Avraham 02:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

PS: The g-synch article DEFINITELY needs a section on g-stat. So if someone knowledgable, such as Taka, can write a good section there, I think that would be immensely helpful! Thanks, Avraham 02:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be consensus that the two articles should not be merged; I am removing the merge tag. — Swpb talk contribs 00:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Altitude vs. Mass[edit]

List of satellites in geostationary orbit[edit]

We need a list of satellites in geostationary orbit. Would it be copyvio to use this information? -- Petri Krohn 15:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

It would be great to find a second (and third and fourth) source of information, and for each entry in the table cite at least two. The obvious place to go is the NASA nssdc catalog. If you confirm the information in two sources before adding an entry to the table, there's little chance of someone claiming a copyright violation. On the other hand if you copy the entire table from a single source without cross-checking each entry, there might be some valid concerns raised! (sdsds - talk) 22:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Don't overlook List of satellites in geosynchronous orbit. (sdsds - talk) 07:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
The best source of orbital data for the Earth's satellites (except US spy ones) is the Space Track web site. Alas, you should register (for free) to get access to the database. Makeyev (talk) 10:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Property tax issues[edit]

I have removed the paragraph about LA County Tax Assessor wanting to assess tax on satellites. The issue came about because the company that manufactures the satellite was located in Los Angeles County, not because the satellite was supposedly flying over Los Angeles County. Nothing in the reference suggested that a geostationary orbit had any issue with the assessment of the property tax. --Mr. PIM 05:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Clarke Orbit[edit]

According to this NY Times obit, the IAU "officially designated" this the Clarke Orbit. If true, probably worth a note here. William Pietri (talk) 14:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

going to class B[edit]

Reading the description for B-class, I think this is good for B class, and maybe even to ask revision for GA. However, I have no experience on that. Could anyone comment on this? Can I just change the status from Start to B myself? Fpoto (talk) 10:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

In several places the article currently makes assertions without providing reliable source citations. I would not support rating the article as B-class until reliable sources are cited for every major assertion. (sdsds - talk) 22:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


I put in a little more about the usage "geostationary" versus the older usage "geosynchronous." The "geostationary"-purists like to find and delete all usages of the word "geosynchronous" to mean "geostationary," but in fact, in the real world the two words are used entirely interchangably-- geosynch is a little older usage, and geostationary a little newer. Frankly, I far prefer "geosynchronous", but geostationary is beginning to be seen more and more. (Every time I hear it, though, I wince, because I know that it means I'm going to have to explain yet again to somebody that no, the orbit isn't really stationary, it's moving, and you can't be "geo" stationary over any point other than the equator. You can't park a satellite in "Geostationary" orbit over Antarctica, because "stationary" really means "synchronous," not "stationary".) Geoffrey.landis (talk) 21:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I wish I had good source citations for this! I believe there is a major difference between these two terms. An orbit is only geostationary when it is circular and directly over the equator. On the other hand, any orbit -- even one with high inclination and eccentricity -- is geosyncrhonous if the orbiting object circles the earth in exactly the time required for one Earth rotation. (sdsds - talk) 05:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
"I believe there is a major difference between these two terms." Yes, you might think. In actual use, though, they have always been used interchangably. The term "geostationary" orbit (which is not actually stationary, of course) is begining to supplant "geosynchronous," but both terms are used. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 01:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Please examine non-Wikipedia sources like the GOES project website. Does that leave any doubt about the use of "geostationary"? By the way you are of course correct: no object in orbit is stationary! And of course you are also correct: every object in "geostationary" orbit is also correctly described as being in "geosynchronous" orbit! But an object can be in an orbit which is properly called "geosynchronous" but which cannot properly be called "geostationary". Please, if inserting into the article the assertion that these terms "have always been used interchangably", be sure to cite a reliable source to support that! (sdsds - talk) 01:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
(e/c) The terms may be used interchangeably in the industry, but I imagine the industry is mostly concerned with geostationary orbits (which are also geosynchronous). In the case of a polar geosynchronous orbit (are there any such satellites?), someone who called it geostationary would probably get laughed out of the lunch room.
We should note that geostationary orbits are commonly referred to as geosynchronous (which they are), but we shouldn't give the public the impression that the two terms are synonymous.
The article already makes clear what the "stationary" part means:
Geostationary orbits are useful because they cause a satellite to appear stationary with respect to a fixed point on the rotating Earth. Franamax (talk) 01:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Geoffrey, I've reverted your recent edit [1] on the following basis:
  • Did you try to find the Potočnik reference before you deleted the text? It actually turned out to be pretty darn easy. Wait a few minutes while I figure out the {{cite book}} template and you'll be able to see it in the article.
  • Why are you blanket changing geostationary to geosynchronous? This article is about the geostationary orbit, the circular equatorial-plane special case of the generalized geosynchronous orbit, which is elliptical and variously oriented and centred. It seems to me too that when you change the derivation of altitude to say it is for a geosynchronous orbit, you introduce a factual error, since a geosynchronous orbit is elliptical and thus continuously varies in altitude. Per the discussion above, I don't think you've gained consensus to change the wording in this article. Franamax (talk) 20:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for adding the Potočnik citation.
As for changing geostationary to geosynchronous in the derivation, the mathematical section I edited in fact derives how high an orbit must be in order to be synchronous with the Earth's rotation, that is, it derives the altitude of geosynchronous orbit. I suppose we probably should just delete the section out of this article, add it to the geosynchronous orbit article, and put in a link saying "the derivation is in the geosynchronous orbit article" but that seemed too complicated. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 03:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
The section on altitude only makes sense for circular orbits, as the first four words make clear: "In any circular orbit, ...". A geostationary orbit is a circular equatorial geosynchronous orbit. But a geosynchronous orbit is generally elliptical, so no such a thing as the altitude of geosynchronous orbit exists, at least not as a single number. In this particular section, you could indeed replace geostationary with circular geosynchronous, but why? It is more complex and uselessly generic, as this article only speaks about geostationary orbits --Fpoto (talk) 13:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
"Geosynchronous," as Wikipedia uses it, means an orbit that is synchronous with the Earth's rotation. The "Derivation of geostationary altitude" section calculates "what orbital radius is needed to make an orbit with the same period as the Earth's rotation?" Therefore, prima facia, this section is calculating the radius of a geosynchronous orbit. Since Wikipedia has defined "geostationary" as a subset of geosynchronous, then obviously once you know this you know the altitude of a geostationary orbit, but the calculation is independent of inclination-- it is purely a calculation of altitude needed for the orbit to be synchronous with the Earth's rotation.
As I wrote above, you cannot compute, in general, the "radius of a geosynchronous orbit", so you cannot simply substitute geostationary with geosynchronous. Regarding what you write below, the semimajor axis of an elliptic orbit is not its radius; this is significant because this section is devoted to altitude, and subtracting the Earth's radius from the semimajor axis does not give you altitude. --Fpoto (talk) 22:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
In fact, the calculation is done for circular orbits, but trivially, by Kepler's law, the period is proportional to the semimajor axis and is independent of eccentricity, so once you know this result, you know the semimajor axis for a geosynchronous orbit of any eccentricity. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 23:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
So what? This article is about the geostationary orbit and only about the geostationary orbit. The consideration that the same equations can be used to solve the general case of any geosynchronous orbit is of no interest to us here. Do you realize that we also have an article on the geosynchronous orbit general case where you can concentrate your efforts? Franamax (talk) 23:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
This discussion has become tedious, so please pardon me if I do not continue. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 22:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

So if wikipedia were to use "geosynchronous" to mean circular and equatorial (just like geostationary), what term would we use for orbits with that exact same period but which are elliptical or inclined or both? One would want to call them "geosynchronous" too, since they are exactly in sync with the Earth's rotation. Is the assertion implicitly being made that these are not interesting cases? Or that for any interesting orbit in this class, there is some specific name, like tundra orbit? (sdsds - talk) 05:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that wikipedia should simply not use "geosynchronous" to mean circular and equatorial. --Fpoto (talk) 13:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Useless / confusing second image[edit]

The second image in the article, added about one year ago by User:Mike1024, is in my opinion out of scope and possibly confusing. If no one objects, I will remove it. --Pot (talk) 15:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Orbit lenght[edit]

Which one of these?

  • The Clarke Orbit is about 265,000 km (165,000 mi) long.
  • The Clarke Orbit is about 265,000 km (165,000 mi) in circumference.

I am for the former, the old version.

An orbit is a path, a trajectory, and intuitively it has a length, as any path has. Sure, the second version is correct, but more complex, and uselessly so. --Pot (talk) 19:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

   The circumference seems to be calculated with the altitude substituted for the radius, thus
   giving a to short answer. Fabian85.228.229.105 (talk) 05:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC) I got my
   math wrong, disregard my previous comment. Fabian (talk) 02:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'd argue that saying circumference is more precise. It reminds one what part of the circle is of interest. (talk) 05:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


This is just about rumours:

Some people in the industry dislike the term "geostationary," because the orbit is not
actually stationary (in fact, the term stationary orbit would be an oxymoron), and
prefer to use  geosynchronous" because it emphasizes the key point that the orbit is not
actually stationary, but synchronized with the motion of the Earth surface.[citation needed]

This reasoning makes little sense for two reasons.

First the method: it can be argued that it is unimportant whether "geostationary" or "geosynchronous" can be significantly attributed to "orbit", because both are terms with a history and a dignity, not just pairs of words stuck together.

Second the merit: an orbit is a trajectory, and as such is "fixed" in the sky, so "geostationary orbit" is not an oxymoron. Orbits do not "move": it's the objects on them that move, so both "geostationary" and "geosynchronous" make perfect sense: one is about looking from the Earth's surface, the other is about looking from space.

I will delete the cited sentence if no one objects. --Pot (talk) 08:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, this wording I think is the result of a discussion a year or so ago. I'd agree that at least "some people in the industry dislike" needs to go - which people, what industry, who what when? We should cover the fact that geostationary and geosynchronous have overlapping meanings though, and in the literature it's not uncommon to find this overlap. As I recall from last year, I'd seen some references presenting the geostationary equations but referring to them as geosynchronous orbital equations. We need to acknowledge this, but without the prejudical language. Franamax (talk) 10:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
It's not "geostationary" that is overlapping: in fact, some people simply do not use the word geostationary but use geosynchronous instead. I think this is not a problem to be covered here, but rather in the geosynchronous orbit page, where in fact it is. --Pot (talk) 12:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I suppose no real-world orbit is ever precisely geostationary; everything is always wobbling a little relative to that. On the other hand some geosynchronous orbits are not remotely geostationary; and hence the problem.- Wolfkeeper 13:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, I see no problem, in fact. Some people just do not like the term "geostationary", and they use the more generic term "geosynchronous" instead. I argue that geostationary orbit has nothing to say on this issue, because it is unambiguous. Some text is already present in geosynchronous orbit that mentions the issue, and that is enough, in my opinion. --Pot (talk) 17:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Libration points[edit]

Could someone clarify exactly what "libration points" are? The phrase was linked in the section where they are named, but that just redirects to Lagrangian point, which is unhelpful at best; if not directly misleading, so I unlinked that. There is also a link to Libration in the Lagrangian article, but that does not seem to be relevant either. Is the same term used for these three different things, or is there some connection that I just can't see? (For what it's worth, that short paragraph explains what it means in this context well, it's just the terminology that seems confusing to me.) -- magetoo 20:46, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Mikeo, could you explain why you deleted the part about libration points? --Pot (talk) 08:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The first part of it was redundant in the article. In addition to that calling it "libration points" is unusual and misleading (see above comment by magetoo) - as this is normally only referring to the stationary solutions of the circular restricted three-body problem (the Lagrangian points). Someone had mixed things up. The thing which is causing the longitudal drift in GEO is (mainly) the second-order, second-degree component of Earth sperical harmonics (causing a slight periodic variation of the semimajor axis) - this is - in a little simlified version - explained in another part of the article). The second part was just plainly incorrect - there just are no 160 satellites gathered at these positions. Mikeo (talk) 16:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. But what about this link where the same story is reported? Is it completely false? --Pot (talk) 16:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes it is false (the gathering of the 160 satellites). Maybe the author of that article has misunderstood something. No reason for us to inherit that error. Mikeo (talk) 20:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Other planets[edit]

Should mention what similar orbits around bodies other than the Earth are called. SharkD  Talk  07:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


I do not understand the simplicity of the section "Simplification", which is apparently only a redundant replica of the previous section (and has also internal redundancies). So, I will remove it, except perhaps the example of Mars, if nobody objects.--GianniG46 (talk) 20:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Picture suggestion[edit]

Trackable objects including debris, note distinct ring of GEO satellites

Penyulap talk 20:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Conversion between units and precision[edit]

In the first line of the introductory paragraph is a precise conversion between kilometres and miles to one unit in each case. That's fine. But a few lines down, in reference to the "belt" containing the Clarke Orbit, the same very precise (to 1 km) metric measure is converted to a mileage seemingly specified to nothing more precise than the nearest thousand miles. 22000 miles (to the nearest mile) is 35406 km (to the nearest kilometre). Would it not be better from the point of view of a more appropriate level of precision to replace the latter distances by "35,400 km (22,000 mi)"?Jamjarface (talk) 16:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


Doesn't the altitude of a stable orbit depend on the mass of the object? It's true of satellites, but anything much more massy than that would not be stable.Gymnophoria (talk) 17:57, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

No. Everything in free fall, falls at the same rate. That's what an orbit is. The difference for massive objects is how much energy it takes to put them in a particular orbit.
-- (talk) 03:02, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Mathematical symbols and equations error[edit]

Mathematical symbols and equations are not being properly displayed on the page. Anyone who can fix this please do so urgently. Ahmer Jamil Khan (talk) 14:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? A quick look shows everything appears to be displaying properly to me. siafu (talk) 17:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

poor gif animation[edit]

someone who knows how needs to replace the radial lines with' dotted ones, and reduce it to one satellite. It had it confused with spokes of a wheel at first. -- (talk) 02:58, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Cosine Rule[edit]

The cosine rule, as it is currently displayed, gives an estimation of the time needed for a signal to travel only from a ground station to a satellite but NOT back from the satellite to the station, as mentioned in the text. In order for the latter to be etsimated, I believe that the coefficient 1/c in the mathematical formula has to be changed to 2/c. I would recommend that an expert look into the matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Queen4thewin (talkcontribs) 22:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


In the illustration "Comparison satellite navigation orbits", the orbits of different satellites appear to be at varying altitudes. Are they thus not precisely geosynchronous? How much variation in altitude and latitude is permissible? Does this eat up extra propellant? Thanks!

-Kortoso (talk) 23:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)