Jump to content

Talk:Communications satellite

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Incorrect Statement

[edit]

"Wireless communication uses electromagnetic waves to carry signals. These waves require line-of-sight, and are thus obstructed by the curvature of the Earth."

Wireless communication, in general, does not require line-off-sight - although it helps. The statement above should be updated to be specific to satellite communication, although even then it is not always necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.78.233.211 (talk) 06:02, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peoppl 1Josias (talk) 17:33, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No mention at all of geosynchronous comsats by the USSR

[edit]

There is no mention at all of geosynchronous comsats by the USSR/Russia. Believe me, there was a Soviet series, and all Soviet/Russian comsats have been the ones of the 12-hour, elliptically orbiting Molniya type. Unfortunately, I cannot put my finger in the name of their geosynchronous series of comsats.
Thus far, the three primary launchers of geosynchronous satellites have been the United States (NASA and the USAF), the USSR/Russia, and the European Space Agency, via its great launch site in French Guinea. Others that have occasionally achieved geosynchronous satellites include the PRC, Japan (using a version of the Delta II rocket made under license in Japan), India, and Brazil, with the possibilities of France, Israel, and South Korea. The United States has launched such communication satellites for a wide variety of paying customers, including Australia, Brazil, Britain, Canada, West Germany, INTELSAT, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mexico, NATO, Panamsat, and the Arabsat organization.47.215.188.197 (talk) 07:47, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Communications 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:

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) 07:19, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Low Earth Orbit diagram in Blue instead of Cyan

[edit]

I would like to propose replacing the diagram showing the location of Low Earth Orbit(LEO) in Cyan with one that shows LEO in blue because Blue is a more well-known colour. Muammar a tq (talk) 18:01, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orbits beyond Geo for Communication Satellites

[edit]

Hi there, should we add a section for other orbits where comm sats are now working and worked before? For example the [[Chang'e_4#Relay_satellite|Change'e 4] or even for other [[Mars] missions, where data is sent from rovers to the mars orbiter first and then relaed to Earth? Or even further ideas like old Apollo ideas for Earth-Moon-Libration points. I would help there of course, if we think it should be put here. Andreas -horn- Hornig (talk) 18:49, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they're pretty obscure and of little use for communication on Earth, but they're still within the topic remit of "comsat", so all the more reason to cover them. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:21, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Number of satellites in error

[edit]

The introduction says there are 1,364 comsats in orbit. Starlink has launched at least 1,600 of its wireless networking satellites to date [1], so this number is erroneous, way low, and should be updated. Elon Musk is planning to eventually orbit 11,000 Starlink satellites; maybe the article should mention the number of comsats will be going way up. I'm wondering if this article should also mention the controversies going on over Starlink [2]: visual pollution of the sky interfering with astronomy, and increased risk of collision and space junk making LEO unusable? --ChetvornoTALK 01:28, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Replaced existing figure with latest updated number as of 1/1/21. I had to manually count the number of communications satellites in the database. If anyone knows somewhere this total is listed, I would appreciate it. --ChetvornoTALK 07:47, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur C Clarke

[edit]

I've tried to untangle the history of Sputnik from the history of Clarke. The article "The Man Behind the Curtain" doesn't mention Clarke. The article "Orbit Wars" doesn't call him an "inventor", but says his letter "was the first publicly articulated vision of a technology that would change the world". Despite various people describing him as an "inventor", I don't think he invented any mechanism: he just explained how the science of communication satellites would work. (It would be very difficult for him to claim any money from the idea, not that he tried.) This says, "The two US engineers chiefly responsible — John Pierce for Telstar and Harold Rosen for Intelsat — saw Clarke as the father of satellite communications". However, our article on John R. Pierce says that Clarke named Pierce and Rosen as the fathers of satellite communications. According to this, Pierce didn't know about Clarke's paper until 1959. Our article on Harold Rosen (electrical engineer) suggests he wasn't aware of it either. So far, I can't find anyone who was directly inspired by Clarke in the development of communications satellites.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:19, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Usage of the term high frequency

[edit]

I saw that we were describing the radio waves as " high frequency". high frequency bands typically means a radio wave between 3-30 MHz, as defined by Skolnik in the radar handbook. Let's try to avoid using unclear wording like this DuraChica (talk) 17:58, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Height of communication satellites

[edit]

The text states: "Many communications satellites are in geostationary orbit 222,300 miles (357,800 km) above the equator," - this height is wrong! As my notes from 1985 to 1989 go it is 36.000 km (thirty-six thousand km = 36 x 10^6m - for down and up stream there is therefora a delay of 250 ms - please check! Peter A. Brenner — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:599:744:9070:188E:DE11:66C0:484E (talk) 10:12, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unwanted signal

[edit]

Nefarious use of these communication satellites is something real and something being used to harass me constantly 24/7 . How can a person that hears this make it stop? Four years of this stuff has made me on edge and scared actually. 98.123.251.246 (talk) 01:16, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Communications_satellite&oldid=1233721485"