Talk:List of satellites in geosynchronous orbit

Previous discussions without headers

1. Is this meant to list satellites that are currently operational, or also historical spacecraft (i.e. excluding Courier 1B)?
2. I propose turning the list into a table so that full orbital parameters (for non-geostationary spacecraft) can be presented in a structured way.

—Fleminra 02:38, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Courier 1B wasn't geostationary, so can't really be listed on the current chart.... I'm not even sure it was geosynch?

Additionally, listing historical craft could be fun - European satellite firms are notorious for reselling craft, shuttling them around the place, etc. Astra 1D has a fun service history (still in service), as do the entire Eutelsat "F" series (all out of service). --Kiand 19:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Operational status

I see theres a comment above on this, but should satellites which are not operational be listed? Astra 1B is -in theory- in service at 19.2E, but its not carried any content for the past few years, and has drifted quite significantly. It is being officially retired soon (and should be removed then), but should it be removed now, as it not actually operational? --Kiand 19:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Problems with this article

I have some difficulties with the way this article is presented. Comments are:

1. It's wrong to describe this list as "broadcast satellites" in my view. "Brodcast(ing) satellite" means something rather specific in the industry (satellites transmitting radio and/or TV in some specific frequency ranges). This list is more comprehensive and probably should be called "Communications Satellites" or "Telecommunications Satellites".
2. Since the situation in orbit is rather fluid, with satellites being launched and relocated relatively regularly then the list needs to indicate the date on which it was correct, so that if updates have not be made for a while it can be treated with some caution.
3. In principle references are needed, because otherwise it is hard to place any reliance on the list.

Any thoughts from others?

MarkPos 14:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Could I also add that it is quite badly formatted in its current format, and would be better presented (and more comprehensive), as a table, for example:

Location	Satellite	Satellite bus	Operator	Type	Launch date/rocket	Previous locations	Remarks
148 (1999—)	EchoStar-1	AS-7000	Echostar/DISH Network	Direct Broadcasting	28 December 1995, Long March 2E	119°W (1996-1999)

I think this would significantly improve the article. References could be integrated in the same way they are in 2007 in spaceflight. A timestamp could be added easily to the bottom of the article, with a comment such as <!--Add "~~~~~" to timestamp--> explaining how to update it. My move proposal below should deal with the title issue. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 09:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes agreed... would be a very good idea, but a major effort to do it, I suppose. --MarkPos 10:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I've just made a start, to show how it could be done. See User:GW_Simulations/Comsats. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 10:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, looks good (and thanks for the effort!). I guess that if you replace the present article with the new table then over time others will fill in the table. Regarding the table, I wonder if there shouldn't be a column for "date of update of information", so that editors can clarify when the specific information about each satellite was last changed in the table. I don't know if a single timestamp for the whole article is really good enough. --MarkPos_{(User Page | Talk | Contribs)} 11:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I've added an extra column for the date. It can be used for references as well. If nobody objects, I'll move the whole thing over in a couple of days. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 16:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks OK. At the risk of over-complicating the table, I wonder if another column to indicate the frequency bands of operation (just putting C, Ku, etc.) would also make the table even more useful? --MarkPos_{(User Page | Talk | Contribs)} 16:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

transponder bands must be listed, theres no point having this page without it. it does not need individual frequencys just a small column with 2 characters to indicate band ie. X or Ku 109.120.203.163 (talk) 14:15, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Done. I've added a column for coverage, which can include frequency and area of coverage. See AMC-8 in the list for an example. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 17:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

It's been about a week. There has been no opposition, so I've implemented my proposal. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 12:57, 3 November 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.

The result of the proposal was move Duja► 08:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

---

List of broadcast satellites → List of satellites in geosynchronous orbit — This article currently lists commercial communication satellites in geosynchronous orbit. By moving it, it can be expanded to list all spacecraft in geosynchronous orbits, including military communication satellites, and other satellites, such as ELINT and weather spacecraft. The current title also implies that it lists communication satellites in other orbits, such as LEO. It does not do this, and a name change would clarify this. —GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 08:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support - In line with my *problems* comments above --MarkPos 08:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Does this article want to be about satellites in geosynchronous orbits regardless of their use? or for broadcast satellites regardless of their orbit? Or does it want to only be about broadcast satellites in geosynchronous orbits? Ewlyahoocom 18:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I think, as GW_Simulations has proposed, it is about a list of satellites in GSO. Looking at the present article the list is GSO only but patently *not* just about broadcasting satellites. --MarkPos_{(User Page | Talk | Contribs)} 18:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

There are already at least two weather satellites listed, along with a number of non-broadcast comsats. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 19:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

What would be wrong with having a second list for satellites in GSO? Non-broadcast satellites could be removed from this list and placed there, which would solve the scope problems here. --bainer (talk) 05:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

What category would you place a satellite which serves both broadcast and non-broadcast communications functions in? A seperate list for all spacecraft in GSO would be pointless duplication. Anyway, if this list is not expanded to encompass everything in GSO, then it will have to be expanded to encompass any broadcast satellites which may be in other orbits. LEO, for example. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 08:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with GW_Simulations on this point. It's worth asking the question, too, as to how a "broadcasting satellite" is to be defined, if indeed this list becomes limited *only* to that category. ITU has a formal definiton of the Broadcasting Satellite Service and some frequency bands are allocated to that BSS service, and satellites operate in those bands, *however* many satellites are also providing "direct to home" TV services (broadcasts?) in frequency bands *not* allocated by ITU to BSS, but to the Fixed Satellite Service (FSS). To make life even more complicated, quite a few satellites carry both BSS and FSS spectrum! If we have several lists then we'll be forever arguing about which satellite belongs in which list. Moreover, if we are to provide a really useful reference then having multiple sub-lists justs confuses the matter. Personally I'd like to see one page carrying a table with all satellites in GSO (irrespective of service or function), as GW has proposed, and then maybe a second page in which all NGSO systems can be listed. --MarkPos_{(User Page | Talk | Contribs)} 11:40, 1 November 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.

Making this table sortable

Making this list sortable would add a lot of value: by longitude, by name, by country, launch date, etc. Unfortunately we can't simply apply the "sortable" attribute due to the hard-coded subdivisions. I recommend 1) moving the "In Transit" and "Historical" sections into separate table(s), 2) removing the hemisphere dividers, and 3) converting the longitude (Location) to signed notation, ie, replace E/W suffixes with +/- values. Making Location the default sort column would then result in the same hard-coded order that the table currently has. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisNoe (talk • contribs) 13:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think that it would justify the potential confusion that it would cause. For example +/- values are incredibly confusing compared to E/W divisions. I don't think that it would add much value. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 22:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

NHK satellites

What about them satellites being used by NHK?

http://www.nhk.or.jp/digital/en/nhks_tech/pdf/bt13.pdf

88.105.125.36 (talk) 18:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

You know what would actually be USEFUL?

If there was any mention, anywhere, of the orbit of the satallites. That might be important. Might be usefull to know if they're at 50 miles, 500 miles, or 5 million miles. Could effect the usefulness of the sats. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.246.120.123 (talk) 01:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Most (if not all) of the satellites listed are going to be approximately 35,786 km above the surface of the earth in Geostationary orbit --KC0ZHQ (talk) 19:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Also were is Optis C1 at 156°E Optis D1 at 160°E AsiaSat 3S at 105.5°E

and more? Maximum effect (talk) 06:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Separation and length of 1 degree of arc

From elsewhere on Wikipedia: equatorial radius of Earth Re = 6378.1 km and Geostationary orbit altitude A = 35786 km asl.

Therefore a circular orbit would have circumference C = Pi * (Re + A) and one degree of arc = C / 360 = 367.95 km. The dubious figure was possibly a typo. Shythylacine (talk) 08:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect. You forgot a two. C = 2 pi r. The value in the article is correct. 76.126.219.11 (talk) 05:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Changing name to geostationary orbit

Am I wrong, or this is a list of satellites in geostationary orbit? If this is the case, the title of the page should be changed. --Pot (talk) 11:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

A Geostationary orbit is a Geosynchronous orbit with zero inclination. I would prefer continuing to use the more general term, geosynchronous. --GW… 11:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I will rephrase: if this table contains only geostationary satellites as I suspect, that is if all satellites listed here have zero inclination, I think that it would be clearer to retitle the page. To substantiate this, I will try an example: what if you found an article titled "list of mammals" and you only found dogs? I would think that a more accurate title would be "list of dogs". --Pot (talk) 13:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

But to continue your analogy, if I found an article entitled "list of mammals" consisting entirely of dogs, there would be nothing to stop me adding a cat to the list. --GW… 18:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, in fact this is what I have thought some time after writing my above reply...

In fact, however, it seems to me that the listed satellites are all geostationary, and this is not a detail, rather it should be highlighted. How about making different sections? One for geostationary and others for different types of orbit? --Pot (talk) 09:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

That could solve the problem. An alternative would be to add an inclination field to the table, and a note in the lead explaining that orbits with 0° inclination were geostationary. This would have the added advantages of maintaining the current order, and providing details which are particularly important for non-geostationary satellites in geosynchronous orbit. --GW… 19:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this is reasonable too. I prefer the sectioning alternative, that is, adding an inclination field only for satellites which have an inclination different from 0. We could have a geostationary section, a circular orbit section and an elliptic orbit section. Also, the introduction with its mention of communication satellites clearly refers to geostationary only. Let's wait and see if someone else expresses an opinion. --Pot (talk) 21:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree. There are now two wiki articles, one for Geostationary and another for Geosynchronous. Therefore, now the list of satellites should be label accordingly to avoid the confusion. 108.92.134.48 (talk) 00:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, just because there it is split elsewhere doesn't mean that it should be here. It doesn't even mean that it is a good system, which it is not. If anything, those articles should be merged and brought in line. --W. D. Graham 08:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The article does indeed include a few cats: satellites in inclined geosynchronous orbit are so indicated by a note in the "remarks" columns. That's why we shouldn't call it a list of dogs, even though dogs are far more popular than cats in this neighborhood. wbm1058 (talk) 15:50, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Total number of satellites

I think the total number of satellites should be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.18.130 (talk) 17:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Launch Date / Rocket

Why are launch date and rocket type in the same column? They seem rather unrelated. Please advise or split them. Thanks. Cody.berdinis (talk) 05:36, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Missing data

There seems to be quite a few satellites with blank "type" boxes. Are the types of these satellites unknown, or are there too many uses to list here? Cody.berdinis (talk) 05:40, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

In Transit Needs Help

The "In Transit" section needs updating. I would move the satellites to the right spot, but I am not sure how. As well, a description for what "in transit" means needs to be added above to chart. Thanks for the help. Cody.berdinis (talk) 05:48, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of satellites in 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
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120315024323/http://iis-db.stanford.edu/pubs/20734/Podvig-S%26GS.pdf to http://iis-db.stanford.edu/pubs/20734/Podvig-S%26GS.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) 06:32, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

i want to know any information regarding a new stationary orbit sat. over RIO RANCHO, NM. FIRST OBSERVED AROUND JAN OR FEB 2020. I LOOKED AT IT WITH A TELESCOPE AT NIGHT AND IT IS EXCEPTIONALLY BRIGHT.

I want to know any information regarding a new stationary orbit sat. over RIO RANCHO, NM. FIRST OBSERVED AROUND JAN OR FEB 2020. I LOOKED AT IT WITH A TELESCOPE AT NIGHT AND IT IS EXCEPTIONALLY BRIGHT.10:42, 7 March 2020 (UTC)174.28.195.27 (talk)JOHN CLARK

Power

It would seem useful to add the transmitter power, at least for ones related to television signals. Maybe not needed for spy satellites. Gah4 (talk) 22:52, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Persistent Vandalism

Rolled back to July 25, 2022 version. There is an IP user that seems intent on messing with is article. Adam850 (talk) 23:56, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Actually, needed to go back to July 9, 2022‎ version Adam850 (talk) 00:00, 25 September 2022 (UTC)