Talk:Geosynchronous satellite

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2018 and 15 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): JGomora.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:17, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussions without headers

The Telstar page claims that it was the first satellite to relay phone calls. This page claims that it was Syncom II a year later. The Syncom page expresses no opinion. So which is it? Rmhermen 20:55, May 1, 2004 (UTC)

All satellites have a "fraction-of-a-second" delay lag. While the next sentence quantifies it nicely, I think it would be better to combine the two. Suggestions? Ventura 20:21, 2004 Jul 23 (UTC)

I agree. Since no more comments have shown up in the last few months, I've gone ahead and just deleted the "fraction of a second" bit (usually "a fraction of a second" also seems to mean "a really short time" in conversation, so this should be clearer...) Ealex292 23:47, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Call for Attention

This article is titled "Geosynchronous satellite" but almost the entire article is about geostationary satelites.

Moving article to geostationary satellite per request. Isopropyl 19:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that geostationary satellite redirects here. Perhaps it should be the other way around? This would require an administrator. Isopropyl 19:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rather shocked!

Quote:

"Satellite dishes in the Northern Hemisphere would need to be pointed almost directly towards the horizon."

This makes no sense at all; half of the world is in the Northern Hemisphere, some of it so close to the equator that an antenna might have to point perfectly skyward to reach a certain geostationary satellite....

But much, much more shocking is (quote):

"with countries barely out of the stone age demanding their orbit slots "

Can anyone think that that has any place in wikipedia? It's the insane peak of a generally dodginess-filled article, but what an outstanding peak it is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 190.40.130.44 (talk) 05:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Plagiarism

This article has a fairly obvious case of plagiarism:

In paragraph six of "Geostationary Satellites" there is a reference to "Fig 2-16". Since this article has no figures, and Wikipedia does not reference its figures in such a matter, I can only assume that this material was taken directly from another (unauthorized) source. The parenthetical notations found within the same section further confirm this. The lack of links to articles lends further credence to the theory that the section was copied and pasted wholesale into this article.

I think someone needs to investigate and possibly remove the plagiarized entries in this article. Perhaps the source could be found and cited...

68.97.185.99 01:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)DRB[reply]

Strongly oppose merger

There should be a distinct page on geosychronous satellites which covers the design and operation and station-keeping policies for the kinds of satellites we have chosen to launch into this very special orbit. It's ludicrous to suggest that geosynchronous orbit should have giant chunks of material on telecoms applications and orbital slot allocation treaties, both of which would be appropriate within an article about the satellites themselves. As it happens, this article doesn't yet contain much of this material, but it probably should. MaxEnt 01:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

g m d s s

radio oprator cmm maren —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.233.65.252 (talk) 11:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Potocnik

The artilce on Potocnik claims that Tsiolkovsky proposed geosynchronous satellites. But I don't believe either of them proposed radio communication satellites, so Clarke still deserves cudos for having a more explicit and practical concept. DonPMitchell (talk) 20:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

It looks like this may have been proposed a few years ago (judging by the "strong opposition" above), but I'd like to propose it again. Currently we have this article, Geosynchronous orbit, Geostationary orbit, and List of satellites in geosynchronous orbit. I think between the last three articles, the content of the present article could be divided. In particular, Geosynchronous orbit seems like a natural place for the content of this article. The argument against this merger above appears to be because this article "should" contain more material. Also an appropriate place for content would be the Satellite article. Mlm42 (talk) 18:03, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No to Merger Proposal

You want the public to contribute; well here is one of our opinions:

The article states there are 300 operational geosynchronous satellites. If people were to start talking about these satellites the information here would balloon and not be suitable for shifting to another article.

If anything, this article should be merged with the List of satellites in geosynchronous orbit or vise versa so the name Geosynchronous satellites remains.

It’s mentioned in the article that geosynchronous satellites have performed mission of communications, television broadcasting, defence, intelligence and weather forecasting.

I think a very interesting section of the technologies used for these various missions might be worth discussing also and may significantly expand the article once again.

More pictures in this article would be good too. Certainly the Syncom 2 satellite looks amazing and I would love to know what was inside it! There are also interesting legal aspects of geosynchronous orbits that would be interesting to hear about.

In short, merging this article with Geosynchronous orbit should not occur.

On another topic, I would like to say that the difference between “plagiarism” and “original” work seems to make it impossible to write an article here. If you choose to use words like plagiarism, then you had better make it clear just how far an author is allowed to go before it becomes original work and is banned.

(Gharr (talk) 14:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Geosynchronous satellite. 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/20090318000548/http://www.clarkefoundation.org/docs/ClarkeWirelessWorldArticle.pdf to http://www.clarkefoundation.org/docs/ClarkeWirelessWorldArticle.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:14, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Geosynchronous satellite. 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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:05, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]