Talk:Geostationary orbit

message: The two are not the same. A geosynchronous orbit can deviate from the equator, whereas a geostationary orbit cannot.
*Either Geostationary orbit or Geosynchronous orbit should be turned into a redirection page to the other, as they are both the same thing. - Geostationary orbit seems to be the more commonly used (gets 65,000 results on google, versus 22000 for the other one). - And the information from the two should be merged into one as well...
**Actually "geostationary orbit" gets around 30000 results on Google, not counting Wikipedia hits.  "Geosynchronous" is the only one I've ever heard of. silsor 19:49, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)
**Assuming they actually mean the same, I've heard of geosynchronous, and vote that that title be the one kept. Anthony DiPierro 20:14, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It does not look like this discussion is very active nowadays (mid-May 2006), but my vote would be to keep both pages and cross-reference them. There is an infinity of geosynchronous orbits, but there is only one geostationary orbit. Most (if not all) of our meteorological, communication and TV satellites are on the same geostationary orbit, where they follow each other. --Michel M Verstraete 21:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This discussion is both obsolete (because there is now a page for Geosynchronous orbit, and false, as the above comments show.  I will delete it in a few days, if I get no adverse comments. Fpoto (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 10:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: From [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion]] page

message: 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)
thread_title:  GSO 

message: "Any point on the equator plane revolves about the Earth in the same direction and with the same period (speed) as the Earth's rotation."
This is bogus. points do not revolve. The gravitational pull of the Earth provides the central force necessary for circular motion of objects in space with a specific velocity. This is independent of the motions of the Earth's surface. For a satellite of given mass, there is a specific height at which it could be geosynchronous if it is given the correct initial velocity. --MarSch 14:28, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This observation is partly obsolete — because the word "revolve" is no longer there — and partly wrong — because geosynchronicity is independent of the satellite mass (as the comment above this one suggests).  For this reason, I will delete this paragraph in a few days, if no one objects. Fpoto (talk) 09:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  wrong 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Number of Satellites

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: Not much of a physicist myself , but I also get the impression something is terribly wrong here, the text seems to accredit the notion that the centripetal force is distinct from the gravitational force, where two "distinct" forces pulling in the same direction would miraculously cancel out to allow for orbital motion . Isn't there a mistake here and centripetal  acceleration here should be centrifugal ?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.190.24.84 (talk) 11:32, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The centripetal force required to keep the object moving in a circle is provided by gravity. I don't see anywhere in the (2019) article saying they are "distinct"? Burninthruthesky (talk) 07:36, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The centrifugal force is a fictitious force. It can be viewed as a reaction to the centripetal force caused by gravity. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 15:48, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of Newton's first law is completely bogus

message: 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?75.45.114.217 (talk) 05:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  GeoStationary & GeoSynchronus Orbits Merged 

message: 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)
thread_title:  GEO is sub-set of GSO 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  GEO is sub-set of GSO: I agree 

message: 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)
thread_title:  GEO is sub-set of GSO 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Non-Merging

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Don't overlook List of satellites in geosynchronous orbit. (sdsds - talk) 07:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  [[List of satellites in geostationary orbit]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Property tax issues 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Clarke Orbit 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  going to class B 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Useless / confusing second image 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Orbit lenght 

message: 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.
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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Rumours 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Libration points 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Simplification? 

message: Penyulap talk 20:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture suggestion 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Conversion between units and precision 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Mathematical symbols and equations error 

message: 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. --67.162.165.126 (talk) 02:58, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  poor gif animation 

message: 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 (talk • contribs) 22:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cosine Rule 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Question 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Geostationary orbit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090327092830/http://www.itu.int/ITU-R/conferences/seminars/mexico-2001/docs/06-procedure-mechanism.doc to http://www.itu.int/ITU-R/conferences/seminars/mexico-2001/docs/06-procedure-mechanism.doc
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The radius of a geostationary orbit should appear explicitly in the Introduction. 94.30.84.71 (talk) 20:36, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: We have the altitude but not the orbital radius. At the distance that we are talking about, I can see how the radius might be more germane than the altitude. Kortoso (talk) 22:15, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Radius 

message: I'm no expert, but that first animation looks misleading to me.  No matter how much I stare at it, I see the Earth rotating about the vertical axis, and therefore assume the satellite is oscillating above and below the equator.
For comparison, I think the red and yellow orbits shown here more clearly demonstrate the difference between a geosynchronous and geostationary orbit.
Assuming I am wrong, and the Earth *is* in fact tilted in that animation, there are two alternative ways it could be improved:
# Rotate it to remove the tilt, thus emphasising that a geosynchronous orbit sits on the flat plane of the equator.  (This would have the disadvantage of obscuring the fact that the Earth's is tilted relative to its orbit around the Sun.)
# or simply add a little line above and below the poles of the Earth, to clearly show the axis of rotation.  This will help to demonstrate that the Earth is tilted, and remove doubt from the viewer.
Is there a GIF expert who could work their magic to achieve the second suggestion? JoeyTwiddle (talk) 05:17, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I have carefully studied the graphic, and found  is correct about the vertical axis of rotation. I have therefore removed :File:Geosynchronous orbit.gif from this article. Thanks for pointing this out. Burninthruthesky (talk) 15:55, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  First gif does not appear at first glance to be geostationary 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Geostationary 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) 17:11, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Geostationary 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/20060626002953/http://www.golombek.com/sat/ to http://www.golombek.com/sat/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130904234835/http://science1.nasa.gov/realtime/jtrack/3d/JTrack3D.html/ to http://science1.nasa.gov/realtime/jtrack/3d/JTrack3D.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) 14:59, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello! This is to let editors know that the featured picture :File:Comparison satellite navigation orbits.svg, which is used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for August 21, 2020. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2020-08-21. Any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be made before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page.  If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:06, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:File:Comparison satellite navigation orbits.svg]] scheduled for POTD 

message: Expression for orbital radius of geostationary satellite 37.111.141.143 (talk) 01:50, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Physics