Talk:Satellite/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

The first artificial satellite -- not sure why the big discussion of Arthor C. Clark's thoughts are here. Many others had discussed and studied satellites before him. He did not invent the idea. First satellite was Sputnik. Done.

Vandalis

I do edit on wikipedia, but i thought I should point out the vandalism on the list of first satellites by country. Specifically, listing Ethiopia as having the first satellite. If someone could fix that, it'd be awesome.

Altitudes

What is the minimum altitude and the name of the lowest satellite to have orbited the earth? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.13.34.54 (talk) 02:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC) What are typical altitudes that satellites occupy? It would be nice to say something about that, ie, how high is geosynchronous? How high are the GPS satellites? etc, to give perspective. - Grubber 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

See Geostationary orbit, Low Earth orbit, Intermediate circular orbit etc.--Yannick 02:47, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Done, however these heights are different for every planet, need to add that remark (eventually) -- kf4yfd 09:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

How about if we stick it in after Types of Satellites ? We could call it Typical Satellite Orbits or Types of Satellite Orbits? Usually satellites are categorized in by their orbits: LEO, MEO, GEO, HEO, Polar, Molniya, Sun-Synchronous and inter planetary. Quoting from High Earth Orbit

• Low Earth Orbit (LEO)
• Medium Earth Orbit (MEO or ICO)
• Geosynchronous Orbit (GEO)
• Geostationary Orbit (GSO)
• LTO
• Polar Orbit

Regards, Wicak 01:24, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

• That sounds like a great addition. As a person who doesnt know much about satellite terminology, I came to this page to find out how high satellites were, but didn't find it and didn't know where to go next. I think a (sub)section on this would be great! - grubber 11:27, 2005 August 4 (UTC)

I change the order of the orbit listing. The general orbits (LEO, HEO, MEO, GEO) are in altitude order, whereas the special orbits are in alphabetically orbit. I'm still trying to find a definitive definition of MEO. IADC only defines LEO and GEO 'protected regions' (another entry than needs to be added). -Taka2007 21:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Drag-free satellites

I'm an aerospace engineer, and I can't understand the following statements, so I removed them:

Drag-free satellites are satellites that offers an environment that is as isolated as possible from the forces of nature. A properly designed drag-free-satellite proof mass is uncoupled from the rest of the Universe to a remarkable degree.

Maybe someone knows something I don't, but then please cite your source so we can verify what your saying. Perhaps the intent was to create an Experimental satellite category for sats like the Long Duration Exposure Facility or the Space Technology Research Vehicles which don't fit into any of the current categories. --Yannick 02:39, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Astronomical Satellites

doesn't this just sound strange ? would it not sound better if it were just Astronomy Satellites to describe their payload ? cheers. Wicak 01:15, 4 August 2005 (UTC) PS. I searched Google for this term (Astronomical Satellite) and couldnt find anything. I also looked at some dictionaries as well. Astronomical is the correct name.

Natural and Artificial Satellite

The article begins with: "In the context of spaceflight, a satellite is any object which has been placed into orbit by human endeavor. They are sometimes called artificial satellites to distinguish them from natural satellites such as the Moon."

I believe that set of sentences are ambiguous when trying to differentiate between artificial and natural satellites. It starts by affirming that "a satellite is any object which has been placed into orbit by human endeavor", limiting the word to artificial satellites on the spot. Then it goes on to say that there are also natural satellites. But if you take the definition strictly as said, then a "natural satellite" makes no sense - because a satellite, by this definition, is placed into orbit by human endeavor.--Marker 17:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree this is a difficulty with current usage of the term, but I fully support the current phrasing of the lead sentence. The qualifying phrase, In the context of spaceflight, makes the assertion which follows true. It effectively says, "In the context of putting things up into space, those things are satellites (no need to qualify the term) if they get into orbit." The second sentence then effectively says, "In the context of things in orbits, there are other things already up there that are also sometimes called satellites." By having the wikilink, it makes clear this article doesn't cover those things, but that another article does. (sdsds - talk) 17:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Numbers of satellites in orbit?

It would be nice if the article could give estimates, either overall or by type, of the number of artificial satellites in orbit. Thanks, Cliff S.

I question this addition simply because satellites can orbit anything (as this page should reflect) and we only track Earth's satellites. See geocentric orbit for these numbers. -- kf4yfd 02:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

There was a discrepancy between the "Early US Efforts" and data in the table under "Launch Capable Countries". I've updated the data in the table from Celestrak.com which gets most of is data from SpaceTrak.org. There is a 30 day lag in some of the data. -Taka2007 18:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Iran?

What is Iran doing in a list of "countries with satellite launch capability" if its satellites are lauched by Russia? 201.1.188.62 05:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. Just because a satellite is developed in Iran it does not mean that they have launch capability. The same applies for the Kazakh and Belarusian satellites (both launched in Baikonur by foreign launch vehicles). I'm removing them from the list. --cassini83 16:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Iran has already launched it's rocket twice. Both times a dummy satellite has been put into orbit and has successfully sent back signals. See Iran says it has put first dummy satellite in orbit and Iran tests rocket for future launch of satellite. In addition Janes defence says Iran's tests of it's launcher have been successful Satellite Launch Vehicle (Iran), Satellite launch vehicles Sarmadys (talk) 04:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

A satellite has been lunched yesterday by Iran and therefore they can be included in the list Iran launches its first satellite Sarmadys (talk) 09:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

US has confirmed the presence of two objects in space from the launch, one is the satellite and the other is the 3rd stage of the carrier. [http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0902/03iran Iran puts satellite into Earth orbit]

Are you ...

Are you aware that there are satellites that are designed to literally destroy other satellites, ICBMs and other targets ? These things are called "Killer Satellites", "Anti Satellite Weapons", "A-Sats". Some have kinetic energy rounds, while others are armed with energy and/or particle weapons. They're designed to take out, mainly other satellites , missiles, MIRVs, warheads. The US and the USSR has built these weapons to take out "enemy" satellites, ICBMs, MIRVs. Rumor has it that other nations now have these things. Martial Law 07:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC) :)

Besides I have seen the Stephen King movie Maximum Overdrive in which a comet is blamed for all of technology killing people. At the end of the movie, it is revealed that a Soviet "weather" satellite had taken out a UFO with powerful laser cannon and Class IV Nuclear Weapons. Martial Law 07:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC) :)

ghgfhgfh

it would be good if this article included an estimate about the number of artificial satellites orbeting earth. AshrafSS 06:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

First Satellite

To be technically correct, the first artificial satellite (going by the strict definition of a man-made object orbiting Earth) was a multi-ton steel plug that was placed over the entrance of an underground nuke test. When the nuke went off, the plug was shot into space. Just wondering if this should be included. Chairman Meow 19:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)Chairman Meow

Yeah, I remember reading about that. They hadn't planned it going into orbit, but because they had a camera on the plate/plug, they could calculate the velocity between frames. Since they didn't find the plate anywhere, and the plate apparently had enough velocity to get into orbit, they assumed it did just that. Very cool. —Taka2007 05:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

This is an urban legend. The plate was 900kg, not multi-ton, and is assumed to have burned up before leaving the atmosphere. If it didn't burn up, drag would have slowed it down below escape velocity. See the article on Operation Plumbbob as well [1] and [2]. Hgebel 06:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Hohmann Transfer Orbit?

I'm don't think it's accurate to refer to a Hohmann Transfer as an orbit per se, at least in the same vein as LEO, GEO, etc. It's not an orbit per se, it's a type of maneuver (or more accurately, two maneuvers). I've seen it called a Hohmann Transfer Maneuver before, but not an orbit. Not saying I can't be convinced to call it a Hohmann Transfer Orbit though. -Taka2007 21:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Satellite Catalog Number

Can somebody write about this? They are set by USSPACECOM I think(?) Here's a link describing them: [3]. Oh, and also International Designator. I have added them to Tele-X, for example. Kricke 21:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I added the two articles Satellite Catalog Number and International Designator. The NSSDC_ID in the Infobox_Spacecraft template links to NSSDC. Perhaps that should be changed to International Designator or NSSDC ID (the later is a redirect)? - Kricke 12:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Norwegian capability

According to Wikipedia's own article Andøya Rocket Range, Norway's launch capability is restricted to suborbital sounding rockets. Should it, in fact, be listed as a nation capable of launching satellites? Mikedash 17:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The above comment is correct. Norway is not, and has never been, capable of launching satellites into orbit. Norway is among the countries which need the help of other nations to launch: The US, ESA, or Russia. Ref the Norwegian Space Centre.

Merge?

Satellite orbit should be merged with orbit (or wherever it redirects to these days), not this page. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 18:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Currently orbit redirects to planetary orbit. These pages are so intertwined that it is difficult to say where and how they should be combined. Nevertheless, effort should still be made.kf4yfd 23:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

yeah, Satellite orbit should fall under orbit rather than satellite. Mlm42 14:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Talk page name

why does Talk:Satellite redirect here to Talk:Artificial satellite?.. Mlm42 14:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

i've fixed it. Mlm42 14:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Satellite vs. Artificial Satellite

This article pretends like it's going to talk about all satellites (natural and artificial) a) in the title, b) in the definition, and c) by having a heading "Human-made devices" (which is essentially the whole article). But it never actually does and it doesn't have to. Is there any objection to moving this page to Artifical Satellites (which is what it's really about). That leaves the "Satellite" page as a disambig/redirect rather than the other way around.--Will.i.am 20:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Or perhaps it was recently moved here for some reason (inferred from the comments immediately above)? --Will.i.am 20:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Someone with more knowledge needs to edit this page as there is an english error in the begining. I simply removed some vandalism.

Just wondering where the whole 'Serbia has launch capabilities' came from. The news article it links to (according to a personal translator) only talks about how Serbia purchased equipment from other countries. The same translator tells me that Serbia did not launch its own, but in fact bought one from abroad (i think Israel) or rented one out. Why is Serbia in that list?

Heraldry

So someone's put a satellite in their coat of arms. Is this really worth including? I think it would struggle to justify its inclusion even under a 'trivia' heading. Scatterkeir 04:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed... perhaps this belongs on the Heraldry page... or, since this is something about a particular person/lineage, maybe the information is not particularly encyclopedic? Or, perhaps an article could be written on the cultural influence of the satellite and more could be elaborated on why the satellite in included in a coat of arms. Just wondering... Goodnight3455 04:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. I'm thinking that this prolly isn't the most appropriate place for this sort of discussion. As I appear to be the third editor in the space of a year to notice this out-of-place verbiage, I'm going to nix the section. E_dog95' ^{Hi '} 15:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm boldly removing the new section on Numismatics based on the same principles we applied to the previously removed Heraldry bit. E_dog95' ^{Hi '} 16:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Kazakhstan

Kazakhstan has not launched its own satellites. All Kazakhstani satellites have been launched on forein rockets. Therefore it should not be included in the table of countries that have developed satellite launch capability. In the case of 212.16.12.227‎ (talk · contribs · WHOIS) it should be treated as vandalism, as the user has been warned multiple times, and is choosing to ignore these warnings. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 22:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an expert, but this article talks about a launch of a Kazakhstan rocket from Kazakhstan — which means they have in-country capability:

• Stephen Clark (19 June 2006). "Kazakhstan Reaches Space in First Satellite Launch". Spaceflight Now. Space.com. Retrieved 2007-03-30. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

— ERcheck (talk) 23:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Proton is a Russian rocket. It is coincidental that it was launched from Kazakhstan. The launch site was built during the Soviet era when Kazakhstan was part of the USSR, and is still used by the Russians. The list in question refers to cases of countries that have developed their own rockets. The Proton is Russian (or Soviet), not Kazakh. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 23:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Importance to Space exploration

Would anyone like to support the current "Importance to Space exploration" for this article (Top Importance)? It seems more appropriate for a "Mid Importance" rating. Athough orbital observatories do admittedly have a high importance, not a lot of exploration is being done with satellites per se. Sdsds 04:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

High Earth Orbit

The link above redirects to Highly elliptical orbit but the term suggests orbits beyond the geosynchronous orbits that are not necessarily highly elliptical. Are there actually satellites on (near-circular) orbits beyond the geosynchronous radius? I remember dimly heaving read about military satellites of the U.S. for detection of nuclear tests that have (or had) orbits of about 100000 kilometres (i.e. about 1/4 of the Moon's orbital radius). On the other hand I cannot see any benefit of such a high (and therefore costly) orbit compared with intermediate altitudes of about 10000 km.--SiriusB 12:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The redirect is clearly misleading: a high earth orbit need not be highly elliptical. The obvious cases are orbits at the Lagrange points. For Earth-Moon all of these, including L1, are beyond GEO. I believe there have been artificial satellites sent to several of these points. (Sdsds - Talk) 19:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Namechange

The title should be Artificial Satellite, since there is an article that deals with the natural kind, and this deals with the man made, I am changing the title, if you have any objections feel free to revert and leave me a comment. I will have satilite re direct to the disambig Tennekis 00:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Did you consider the question of capitalization when you made the move? (Sdsds - Talk) 00:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

If you mean to use the lowercase name standard, he might have noticed we've apparently gone around these names before. See the history of "Talk:Artificial satellite". (SEWilco 02:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC))

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

• Artificial Satellite → (multiple possibilities) —(Discuss)— This article had been living happily at Satellite until a recent move to Artificial Satellite was made without prior discussion. The result is a confusing (to me, at least ;-) set of redirect and disambiguation pages, some of which seem like endless loops! Returning this page to Satellite with an appropriate otheruses template makes the most sense to me. But at a minimum, can it be moved to Artificial satellite, replacing the redirect currently there? (Sdsds - Talk) 04:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I've placed a request for a move at Wikipedia:Requested moves#4 May 2007. (Sdsds - Talk) 04:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

This article was originally at 'Artificial satellite', second word lowercase, which is where it should be returned. That page is now a redirect, which I just changed, sensibly, to point here. The one paragraph on natural satellites is duplicated in Natural satellite, I removed it. The way, the truth, and the light 05:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• Please see Special:Whatlinkshere/Satellite. When editors write, satellite, they mean to get to this article about artificial satellites. (Sdsds - Talk) 06:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Would it make better sense to rename it to Satellite (artificial)? (Sdsds - Talk) 04:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, although it's inconsistent with Natural satellite. If we want to get it moved we have to agree on a target, and I think we have a better chance of actually getting it through if we ask for the uncontroversial Artificial satellite. The way, the truth, and the light 04:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Either way seems acceptable. The advantage of Satellite (artificial) is the terseness of expression using the pipe trick notation, [[satellite (artificial)|]] for the very common usage of just "satellite". (Sdsds - Talk) 20:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

This article has been renamed from Artificial Satellite to satellite as the result of a move request. No consensus has been demonstrated for the move to "artificial satellite", and having satellite redirect here indicates that this is the primary meaning. I can see no reason why the article should nto be at satellite, as it has been for years. --Stemonitis 09:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Minimal orbital speed

Both this article and the one on Konstantin Tsiolkovsky seem to imply that Tsiolkovsky showed a satellite in orbit around the Earth must be moving at least 8 km/s. But that just isn't true. A satellite in Geostationary orbit is moving at 3.1 km/s. Check out the values in the table at Template:Earth orbits. It shows 8 km/s is the speed of a satellite in the lowest possible orbit, and speed decreases as orbital altitude increases. Or do these articles really say something that is somehow consistent? (Sdsds - Talk) 05:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe 'speed' here is an imprecise way of saying delta-v, which does indeed need to be at least 26,000 ft/s (8 km/s) to orbit the earth. The way, the truth, and the light 15:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I've reworded this to refer to the speed required for a minimal orbit, rather than the minimal speed required for orbit. The distinction may be slight, but one seems more correct. (Sdsds - Talk) 04:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Nationalistic subtext

The section on "Launch capable countries" has a tone that subtly implies a certain kind of nationalistic thinking about the subject. I don't think this is intentional on anyone's part, but as it stands the section fails WP:NPOV acceptability criteria. It implies that nation-states launch satellites. Largely this is not now true. In the United States for example, NASA, NOAA, NRO, and even the military don't launch many of their own satellites these days. Instead, the reality for most entities that want to launch satellites is that they contract out the launch to a launch service provider like United Launch Alliance or International Launch Services or Arianespace. So: why is this "Launch capable countries" idea notable enough for inclusion in the article? (sdsds - talk) 03:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC) I agree with you for different reason, i think that listing satellite capable countries is not imporetanat and therefore be removed Moneya (talk) 17:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

is this article only about artificial satellites?

from intro, i gather this article should only be about artificial satellites. meanwhile, in several places (such as the discussion of orbit types) it includes things that don't apply to artificial satellites. i will try to make some changes accordingly. 82.6.96.66 (talk) 14:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Orbit types section

I've tried a few times to remove the list in the orbit types section, since it has now been completely moved to (and expanded upon) in List of orbits. I think it's much more appropriate there, since that include orbits of natural satellites as well. Since either a bot reverts me every time i try to remove it, or i get blocked (*sigh*), could somebody with an account please remove it? thanks. 82.6.96.66 (talk) 16:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more; it's gross duplication. Let's see what happens when I try to delete it! 86.133.245.198 (talk) 03:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Scope

It's not clear from the opening paragraph whether the scope of the article is intended to be limited to Earth-orbiting (artificial) satellites, or whether man-made satellites of other planets are also to be included in the definition. If the former, suggest adding the word "Earth" again:

In the context of spaceflight, a satellite is an object which has been placed into Earth orbit by human endeavor.*

Otherwise, suggest something along the lines of:

In the context of spaceflight, a satellite is an object which has been placed into orbit by human endeavor (usually into Earth orbit, but also including craft orbiting other planets and astronomical bodies).

While we're at it, I'd also be inclined to removed the first sentence: "According to the Oxford English Dictionary a satellite is any object, man-made or natural, that orbits the Earth." I don't think it's necessary, especially not so prominently, when we are defining for ourselves what the article is about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.245.198 (talk) 03:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

*Actually, I've just realised that this won't do. Regardless of the intended scope of the article, the fact is that man-made objects in orbit around other planets are sometimes called "satellites", so the sentence will have to be reworked. Still, you get the idea...

Thanks very much for raising for discussion the topic of the article's scope! Up front: I support limiting the scope of this article to artificial satellites in Earth orbit, despite the fact that many other things are also somtimes called satellites. I support making that limit explicit by (as you suggest) starting the article with the sentence that begins, "In spaceflight...." As for the observation that some spacecraft orbiting bodies other than Earth could be described as "satellites", while true, I don't think this is as common as describing them as "orbiters", (as compared to "landers" or "rovers" or "impactors"). For example, Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter and Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter. (sdsds - talk) 03:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I did a quick Google before posting my comment, on "satellite mars" (without the quotes), and a surprising number are using the term in relation to artificial satellites. Incidentally, while you're here maybe you'd care to take a look at the comments above under "Orbit types section". My deletion was reverted by a bot too! 86.133.245.198 (talk) 03:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC).

Too US-centric

In the History of Satelites section, there are only 1 1/2 lines about Sputnik, but 20 or 30 lines about early US satelites. Surely the USSR program out to be covered in as much detail? 80.2.200.96 (talk) 00:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Perhaps you could rectify the issue rather than asking for it to be done? That is what Wikipedia is all about, after all. Cheers and welcome.--Read-write-services (talk) 03:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Russian inventions category

Guys, since the first satellite, the Sputnik, was invented in the Russian SFSR, it's logical to place this article in the Russian inventions section. Justl like tank for example is placed in the British inventions. Shpakovich (talk) 23:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Problem with layout

"Launch-capable countries" has a layout problem: the larger table of satellites has not been created properly and now contains all the text that should follow it. The number of Indian satellites does not appear. 86.126.226.79 (talk) 14:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Iran

The Iranian launch was never confirmed, and US sources suggest that it failed. I therefore propose that Iran be removed from the list of "launch-capable countries". --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 21:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Done E_dog95' ^{Hi '} 18:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Did you even look at the earlier discussion about Iran? Sarmadys (talk) 14:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Your Yahoo sources present only the Iranian claim, which has not been supported by anyone else, indeed the US refutes it. I do not see anything in the Jane's article saying that Iran launched a satellite with its own vehicle, it only mentions the two launched on Russian vehicles. So again, Iran does not belong on the list. Did you hear they also claimed to have cured AIDS? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 16:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Now you can add it: Iran launches its first satellite. This time it is the actual satellite and I guess will count as "space capable"! Sarmadys (talk) 09:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Second largest artificial satellite

To know that the ISS is the largest is somehow witless.. Could somebody therefore please add what the next largest is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.11.197.115 (talk) 15:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

How is it witless? It is, by definition, a satellite. One with people on it, but a satellite none the less. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 17:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

India to the moon.

Quote "India's historic maiden mission to the moon, Chandrayaan-I, was launched early on Oct-22-2008 morning from the mission control room at Sriharikota, India."

What has this to do with satellites? Perhaps relevant for the article on the Moon, but why is it included here. I mean hats off to the Indians, but perhaps this info should be elsewhere? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.240.99 (talk) 04:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Splitting up section on launch-capable countries

I've spilt up the section on launch-capable countries as it included countries who've launched satellites with the aid of other countries, and also included a private company, SpaceX under "countries". I've put in a section "Launch capable private entities" - is SpaceX the only private company who has done this? or should others be in there? cheers, hope this is ok. It just seemed wrong to have SpaceX under countries.... --mgaved (talk) 21:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I guess SpaceX will go under USA. In USSR and Russia for example many companies built space rockets (not private entities though). But all of them go under 1 space capable country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarmadys (talk • contribs) 02:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to propose deleting the section on privately funded satellites, there are numerous other companys that have launch vehicles, and if you want to have it at least add the orbital sciences peagsus which is also privately funded and has been in use since the early 90s. The way its worded right now it comes off as an ad for spaceX. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.80.108 (talk) 02:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

How many?

There should be a section here that talks about how many Satellites are currently in orbit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.168.136.137 (talk) 21:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The two tables

They seem to be an ongoing maintenance problem and a source of dispute. None of the items that do not have articles have sources so I see that as a problem. Should these tables be kept? Is this information important to convey to readers? Could we integrate some of these totals into actual prose instead? E_dog95' ^{Hi '} 21:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I guess we have real problem without correct citations. Someone has now modified the number of satellites for Iran to 4. I am aware of only 2, Misbah was launched by Russia and Omid was launched by Iran itself. Now how is it 4?! I guess the entire table goes under question this way. Each country should perhaps have a launches list page and then that page can be cited in each of the table's entries. Sarmadys (talk) 02:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

• Perhaps the tables could be moved into separate articles - the first table is already covered at Timeline of first orbital launches by country. I agree there is a problem - Ukraine is present in the first table when it does not have launch capability (see my comment on Talk:Timeline of first orbital launches by country), and the second one is confusing, and contains factual inaccuracies and inconsistencies. The first completely British satellite was Ariel 3, launched in May 1967, although the table does not seem to have a requirement for the satellite to be entirely of the nationality in question, so Ariel 1, launched in April 1962, should be listed as the first British satellite. --GW… 08:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

case of Ukraine

I did a search and it seems:

- Sich-1 has been launched from "Plesetsk Cosmodrome" using a "Tsiklon-3" rocket. Sich-1

The launch has been a partial failure, the Chilean micro-satellite Fasat-Alpha has failed to separate from Sich-1 (secondary payload) 1995

- Anyway Plesetsk Cosmodrome belongs to Russia and Tsyklon-3 (and also Tsyklon-2 and Tsyklon) rockets are mentioned to be Russian and subsequently Ukrainian (derivatives of russian R-36 (missile) missile).

NASA source above quoutes: "The spacecraft and instruments on board were similar to those of the Soviet Okean series." (i.e. Sich-1)

I am not sure how should the launch be interpreted. A Russian-Ukrainian rocket launched from a Russian space field carrying a similar to Soviet Okean series satellite? Sarmadys (talk) 02:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

According to NASA and several other sources It was a soviet satellites on board a Russian rocket, so it does not belong on the list. Noaccess2k (talk) 12:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Both Sich-1(Okean) type satellite and Tsyklon launcher were developed in Soviet Union in Yangel Bureau in Dnepropetrovsk, Ukrainian SSR. At launch 31.08.1995 both were no Russian-Ukrainian or Ukrainian-Russian even but were fully Ukrainian for the first time because, first, were completely produced in Yuzhmash plant in independent Ukraine and, secondly+mainly, belonged to Ukraine that ordered the launch service in Russia (Russian spaceport Plesetsk) only. On the one hand, if we no recognize these launcher and satellite as Ukrainian due to Soviet origin, then we absurdly must consider as Soviet but non-Russian all of currently operating Russian launchers and most of currently operating Russian satellites that were developed under USSR also. And, on the other hand, case of first Ukrainian launch at 31.08.1995 from foreign spaseport is absolutely equal for France and British launches of their first own rockets with own satellites from spaceports abroad (from independent Algeria and Australia) - so if we will delete Ukraine from list, we must delete UK and France also; but all these would be wrong. 193.232.252.254 (talk) 22:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• Ukraine may have the capability, but it did not develop it itself. If Ukraine is listed (which I think would be a bad idea), then Russia should be listed separately as well for the same reasons. Also, why this launch, and not the one on 13 July 1992? Regardless of that, my point that Ukraine inherited the capability rather than developing it itself still stands. --GW… 23:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree with GW_Simulations and I think we should edit this sectiona and either remove Ukrane from the list OR the other thing that we can do, is to number the countries from 1 to 9 and leave Ukrane unnumbered. Under the box, we must also mention that Ukrane inherited the capability rather than developing it.Parvazbato59 (talk) 22:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

That seems like a good option. If we list Ukraine in this way, we must also list Russia. I would recommend using the format that I introduced to Timeline of first orbital launches by country. --GW… 17:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Therefore, I would like to announce that I will introduce what I suggested or show countires in the suggested format of user:GW_Simulations in Timeline of first orbital launches by country. We will number the countries and we will describe under the listing that Ukrane and Russia inherited their launch capabilities. If anyone disagrees, please announce their disagreements with support. Regards Parvazbato59 (talk) 19:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Net worth of satelite industry

Out of curiosity, what is the net value in USD of the satelite industry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.113.241.145 (talk) 05:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Number of satellites in geocentric orbit

"By far this is the most common type of orbit with approximately 2456 artificial satellites orbiting the Earth. " "Currently there are approximately 2465 artificial satellites orbiting the Earth." Should these not have the same value? CTC (talk) 13:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

First satellites

Where is Canada? They launched one in 1962 before France. 70.83.23.68 (talk) 21:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

They are on the list of first satellite by country, not first launch. It did not launch on a Canadian rocket, Canadian developed, Canadian launch site, etc. It was launched by NASA, on an American Thor rocket, and from Vandenburg. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 02:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I have heard, from a former employee of RCA, that the first radio repeater, or relay satellite was made by RCA and that this was before NASA was formed. This link [4] describes a communications satellite that was launched on an Atlas rocket in Dec. 1957. This agrees with what I was told; that a military rocket was used for the launch. He was involved in the development of this satellite. RCA also built a satellite called Relay 1. It was launched shortly after Telstar 1 (after NASA was formed).Zen-in (talk) 03:00, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

how many satellites

how many satellites are in orbit rite now public private and military, for all satellite possessing countries?67.77.46.156 (talk) 17:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)sterling67.77.46.156 (talk) 17:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

how many satellites

how many satellites are in orbit rite now public private and military, for all satellite possessing countries?67.77.46.156 (talk) 17:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)sterling67.77.46.156 (talk) 17:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

duplicate entries

I see that Turkey is listed twice. The second entry (2009) should be deleted, because it has launched its first satellite earlier (1994), but I don't know about the total count - if it is 5 (as in the 1994) or 6 (1994+2009 rows). Maybe there are other duplicate countries too. Also, it would be good if we have lists like "List of satellites of Turkey" (that include all satellites with launch date, decommission date, re-entry date, launch vehicle, spaceport, funding - commercial or public, etc.) so that such things can be clarified. Alinor (talk) 07:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

three types of satellites depending on altitude of the orbite?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.238.44.84 (talk) 19:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC) 

What's the size of the ERS 2

Somebody please add the height, length and breadth to the underscore of the image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.220.46.121 (talk) 02:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Why? This isn't an article about ERS 2. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 05:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

New Intro to Satellites video series is up

There is a very well done series of seven video shorts that provide an excellent introduction to satellites in 2010, what they do, how they operate and function in orbit, etc. The graphics are really excellent and would be, I think, quite instructive to the reader of the encyclopedia who comes looking for such a video introduction to satellites. Each video is only about 2 minutes long, so the total must be around 14 minutes. The link is here.

The production firm, who apparently developed these films for the European satellite company Astra, says the films include "sections on history, physics, control, launch, why we need satellites, business and the future. The films use accurate scientific data but we have tried to present it in an engaging, entertaining way." I think they succeeded.

I would think we might want to consider adding the link to the "External links" section, but will leave that decision to other editors who know more about the Satellite wikipedia article. Cheers. N2e (talk) 02:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

First satellites of countries

Can we please have a list of countries independently designed their own satellites? Most of the countries in the present list bought their satellites or sent to space objects you barely can call "satellite" aside for the fact it orbit earth. --Gilisa (talk) 11:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Not there

Mauritius has a couple satilites in space, there not on list and how about North Korea? Mickman1234 (talk) 08:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

GSO/GEO clarification needed in multiple articles

We need a clarification about GSO and GEO... I corrected the naming to GSO = Geosynchronous orbit and GEO = Geostationary orbit for now where needed in the main articles like:

• Geostationary orbit
• Geosynchronous orbit
• List of orbits
• GEO
• GSO
• Satellite

I did this in accordance with the discussion in Talk:Geostationary_orbit#GEO_is_sub-set_of_GSO which is sadly very old and in my opinion misplaced (since it affects so many articles). Sadly, as User Taka2007 pointed out:

"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°."[5]

Wikipedia itself conflicts in the usage of the terms, even in the main articles (before I corrected it). And there is also some pictures like which uses one or both terms in one or the other way. Anyway, I don't know what is really the correct way to use the terms GEO und GSO or if there is one, but we either need to get some reliable source which tells us how to use it or we have to clarify in some articles that there is a general conflict in the usage of the terms! So, your opinions please... ColdCase (talk) 23:46, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Satellite on-orbit mass

I've been looking around Wikipedia and have not been able to find any information on the typical/average on-orbit mass of satellites. This is an important variable for space debris mitigation as the delta v budget required for the intentional deorbit of any satellite is entirely a function of its' mass and its' orbital characteristics. For sats in low-Earth orbit, this may be less important as the natural atmospheric drag will help deorbit LEO objects over months or years. However, for the higher energy Earth orbits—geosynchronous orbit, Medium Earth orbit or High Earth orbit—the delta-V required to clean up the debris by deorbiting it is comparable to about one-third of the energy it took to take the object to orbit in the first place. An understanding of satellite mass would be helpful to this scoping, which is why I think it would be a good idea to address typical/average satellite mass in this article. Anyone know a source for such information? N2e (talk) 16:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Orbitalaltitudes.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Orbitalaltitudes.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Media without a source as of 30 June 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:25, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

FCC jurisdiction

The article currently claims that

As of 2002, the FCC now requires all geostationary satellites to commit to moving to a graveyard orbit at the end of their operational life prior to launch

Does the US agency FCC have jurisdiction beyond US satellites? I'm not aware that it does, but then maybe some sort of international super-agreement gives the FCC international authority, like ICANN has for internet names. However, if not, we should clarify that the deorbit commitment applies only to US communication satellites that are under the (necessarily) limited jurisdiction of the FCC; which would likely not even apply to ALL US satellites (military, etc.). Cheers. N2e (talk) 15:10, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Archive 1

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Satellite/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Reading the article "satellite" one would get the impression that the first satellite was launched by the US; the launch of Explorer I in 1958 is mentioned before the one of Sputnick in 1957 and the latter is announced in a short sentence whereas the American projects prior to 1957 are explained in great detail. Good example of americano-centrism. Particularly displeasant in the field of science. 134.157.10.39 11:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)  Done I think the current version adequately addresses this concern. (Sdsds - Talk) 01:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 01:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 15:45, 1 May 2016 (UTC)