Talk:Geosynchronous orbit

message: Can something other than the image made in MS Paint be used for the second image for geo orbit?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolven1 (talk • contribs) 07:32, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Badly Made Image

message: what about an orbital period that has half the sidereal rotation period of the Earth so that it appears above the same spot exactly twice in one day or integer multiples of the rotation period. Couldn't these be considered geosynchronos orbits, after all they are synchronised with the earth rotation period? I don't know whether they're useful though...
:The Molniya satellites are in 12-hour orbits. They're (roughly) over the same area every other orbit. 
:However, while the orbital period is intentionally a fraction of the Earth's rotational period, calling it "synchronous" is more likely to cause confusion than clarification.
:—wwoods 17:39, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The term for the orbit of a satellite with a 12 hour period is semi-synchronous.  So yes, you are right that it is snychronised in some manner.  GPS satellites are also in this category as they have 12-hour periods.  --Owlmaster08 (talk) 11:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  synchronous/sidereal period 

message: Hello!  Can someone please add a section on Geostationary orbits?  Avraham 02:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps we should merge Geostationary orbits into Geosynchronous orbits?  On WikiProject Rocketry, these two pages were listed as "needing attention" under the merge/split section.  Seeing as they are quite similar, I was wondering what everyone else thought about such a merge.  --Matthew Desjardins (14:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep Separate These subjects are related but their practical implications are different. Geostationary particularly references objects above the equator where there are specific applications and limited "real eastate" available. Geosynchronous is a much broader concept and deserves a separate treatment. The question starting this thread is unclear - it looks to me as though this article has clearly referenced the Geostationary orbit article for quite some time. Both articles could use improvement but they should each evolve separately. As I am a layman, insert haha's below if I've misinterpreted anything :) Franamax (talk) 02:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, thanks.  I will remove the suggestion on the Rocketry page --Matthew Desjardins (14:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Keep Separate Whilst a Geostationary orbit is a special case of a Geosynchronous orbit, that would be a poor reason to subsume Geostationary orbit into Geosynchronous orbit. If this merge were to happen, then by similar logic Geostationary transfer orbit would have to be merged into Geosynchronous orbit.  What is the point of the proposed merge? Geostationary orbits deserve an exclusive article, as is currently the case. BlueOrb (talk) 07:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

text:  I agree that they should be kept separate.  Also, I dislike the change where it says that a geostationary orbit with null eccentricity and inclination is sometimes called geostationary. I would definitely say that it is usually or customarily called geostationary. I do not know about spacecraft design, but in the field of telecommunication satellites, the word geostationary is much more common than geosynchronous.  This is true in Europe but I think it is true elsewhere, too.  So I advocate for changing the sometimes with usually, normally or the like. Fpoto (talk) 14:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Geostationary orbit

message: Article reads: Synchronous orbits exist around all moons, planets, stars and black holes — unless they rotate so slowly that the orbit would be outside their Hill sphere or so fast such an orbit would be inside the body. 
There are two problems with this statement. 
1. Talking about syncronous orbit around a black hole is not entirely meaningful. A black hole does not have a surface and the rotational period is somthing that can only be deduced indirectly. Also gas gigants don't have a surface and it is hard to decide their rotational period (for a recent example see: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060503_saturn_day.html). Also one would have to take into account relativistic effects such as frame draging in the case of a fast rotating black hole, which is not mentioned in the article.
2. The statement that syncronous orbits don't exist for very fast rotating bodies is theoretically true, but can in practise only happen for small objects such as astroids and very small moons. Large objects and black holes are held together by gravity and the centrifugal accelration exactly maches the gravitational force at the geosyncronous orbit, thus, an object rotating so fast that a geosyncronous orbit would only exist inside the object must be held together by another force than gravity and the object has to be small.
: Fixed Lessthanideal (talk) 01:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Synchronous orbits around objects other than the Earth

message: It says "terrestrial communications facilities (microwave, fiber-optic), even undersea" - terrestrial isn't through a cable such as fiber-optic, is it? Not according to the Wikipedia page on terrestrial.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.211.159.225 (talk) 19:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the Wikipedia page on terrestrial right now (and on 24Feb) is a disambiguation link that begins with "Terrestrial refers to things having to do with the land". Fibre-optic cables are laid on, under, or very close to the ground. "Land" can also refer to ground under water - when a ship sinks, we talk about it "landing" on the bottom; and I can own a piece of "land", even if part of it is underwater; so I think terrestrial does survive the narrow definition. Think "land" as opposed to "space". Maybe that sentence in terrestrial needs to be firmed up a bit though... Franamax (talk) 00:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

text: In telecommunications, terrestrial is usually contrasted with satellite and deep space. For example, you have terrestrial wireless communications (usually abbreviated to wireless comm), satellite wireless communications (usually satellite comm) and so on. Fpoto (talk) 15:30, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  terrestrial 

message: GEO actually stands for Geosynchronous Equatorial Orbit (Earth is given by "Geo" in "Geosynchronous")  I know I read this in a booster manual and will look for a citation.  I haven't changed it because I'm new to Wikipedia as an editor. Featherwinglove (talk) 15:18, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: More reliable sources with alternate definitions are welcome, but unless you can argue that the NASA reference already in the article is somehow not reliable, the existing definition with the reference should stay.  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 15:57, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

text: (head->wall) I thought I read it in the glossary of the Delta II or Delta IV User's Guide, but the latest edition gives it as Geosynchronous Earth Orbit.  Of course, definitions change and this might have happened; it might be a symptom of how our Space Age has waned and become more Earth-centric since the 1960s.  For "LEO", I prefer to think of it as "Low Energy Orbit" instead of "Low Earth Orbit" because low altitude circular orbits have similar purposes over every body: taking advantage of Hohmann and Oberth effects for transfers to higher orbits or escape trajectories, reduced synodic periods with both launch sites and destinations, close observation of the body you're orbiting, ease of access from and communications with the surface, etc..  I know I'm the exception in using LEO that way. Featherwinglove (talk) 18:55, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

text: Got it: Ariane 5 User's Manual Issue 5 Revision 1, 2011 July pp. 0.11 at http://www.arianespace.com/launch-services-ariane5/Ariane-5-User%27s-Manual.asp  The Proton Launch System Mission Planner's Guide 2009 July edition has GEO standing for just "Geosynchronous Orbit" (no Earth, no Equatorial.)  Atlas V Launch Services Mission Planner's Guide 2010 March edition doesn't have any occurrence of "GEO" and uses GSO instead (it doesn't even have a "GEOMETRIC" or "GEOGRAPHIC" to distract Ctrl-F on a case-sensitive search!)  As for the NASA reference you're referring to, um... is that the "For Students > Grades 5-8" reference?  (Argument that this reference might not be reliable is the same as the argument that this beautiful cutaway of the Saturn V rocket might not be the one to go to for authorative information: https://xkcd.com/1133/) Featherwinglove (talk) 23:02, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, ref confirms so I've added it to the page and the geostationary orbit page. — Reatlas (talk) 05:33, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's important to convey that there isn't a consensus in the industry about what the Clarke Orbit should be called (despite being named that by the IAU itself, which is hard to beat in terms of "official", I have never once seen it referred to as "Clarke Orbit" in technical literature.)  I'll never stop laughing if the industry winds up inheriting whatever consensus the community of Kerbal Space Program (the game) reaches regarding KEO, or KSO, or GKO, or Klarke Orbit ...if they ever reach a consensus, that is. Featherwinglove (talk) 11:53, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of GEO 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Geosynchronous orbit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131004215844/http://www.arianespace.com/launch-services-ariane5/Ariane5_users_manual_Issue5_July2011.pdf to http://www.arianespace.com/launch-services-ariane5/Ariane5_users_manual_Issue5_July2011.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:14, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Geosynchronous orbit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041104195134/http://www.sciencepresse.qc.ca/clafleur/Scfam-geostationary.html to http://www.sciencepresse.qc.ca/clafleur/Scfam-geostationary.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:05, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Geosynchronous orbit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131019171701/http://www.zarya.info/Diaries/Launches/geo-loc.php to http://www.zarya.info/Diaries/Launches/geo-loc.php
*Added  tag to http://www.click.co.gh/space
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:11, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Geosynchronous orbit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050821080635/http://science.nasa.gov/realtime/rocket_sci/satellites/geo-high.html to https://science.nasa.gov/realtime/rocket_sci/satellites/geo-high.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:31, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: Doesn't such an object simply stay in the same position? It doesn't return to that position after a day.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.69.55 (talk) 12:54, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a geostationary orbit. Geosync generally moves in a figure 8 over the course of a day --Spacepine (talk) 08:53, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: for an observer on Earth's surface, an object in geosynchronous orbit returns to exactly the same position in the sky after a period of one sidereal day

message: Having worked at a GPS COMMAND station on Keajalein in the Marshall Islands i see an ambiguity in the terms (and there are no references) ... but all my knowledge would be considered original research which is a prohibited source on wikipedia. 
Try GPS.GOV 
Have fun. Orbital science is a/an (insert explicitive or discrptine noun phrase here). GeorgeV73GT (talk) 12:12, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation of GeoSynchronous and GeoStationary 

message: Man 42.111.101.9 (talk) 18:38, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geosynchronous orbit