I thought it required a subscription or something.

On 30 Dec 2005 14:53:52 -0800, wrote:

I thought it required a subscription or something.

A subscription is preferable to the alternatives for many.

dxAce wrote:

wrote:

Staitionary satellite eh? Haw Haw Haw!

They are not stationary, however they are in orbit so far above the planet that
they 'appear' to be stationary.


The height of the orbit has not much to do with it. It's the fact that
they are orbiting the planet at the same rate as it turns that makes all
the difference.

A tree outside my window has very little in the way of altitude but
remains apparently stationary. It's upper branches move around the
exterior of the planet at roughly 24 hours per complete revolution.

Any variation in the branches' time from that of the roots would be
cause for great concern.






mike

On 2005-12-29 21:50:45 -0500, said:


James Douglas wrote:
Got one for the wife for christmas and had a hard time receiving signal
at home so tried it in the office today with no luck either. It does
work at home if you place the antenna 10' outside the house.

Anyone else having these issues? Have not tried it in the car yet but
have to believe as many of these things I see on other car's it must
work pretty good

Iff they're like GPS units, you need a clear shot of the sky;
- probably south.

take it outside & try there..

the signals are Very very weak,
Good luck

I got a wacky idea, how about going to the Sirius site and read all about it???

Call me wacky.

Concerning Trees,being stationary or not.It all depends on the Wind
factor.Katrina was causing that big (at least seventy feet tall,or
taller) tall Pecan Tree in my front yard to dance around at Ground level
like a wild Indian on Camp Kickapoo joy juice.If I had a camcorder,I
would have taken a movie of that Dancing Pecan Tree.
cuhulin

m II wrote:
dxAce wrote:
They are not stationary, however they are in orbit so far above the planet that
they 'appear' to be stationary.

The height of the orbit has not much to do with it. It's the fact that
they are orbiting the planet at the same rate as it turns that makes all
the difference.

The height of the orbit has EVERYTHING to do with it. The height of the orbit
is what causes the geosynchronicity. Arthur C. Clarke figured it out. His
first known mention of the subject indicates clearly that the height is of
the essence to the geostationary natu

"An 'artificial satellite' at the correct distance from the earth would
make one revolution every 24 hours, i.e., it would remain stationary
above the same spot and would be within optical range of nearly half
the earth's surface. Three repeater stations, 120 degrees apart in the
correct orbit, could give television and microwave coverage to the
entire planet." -- Clarke, letter to Wireless World, 1945

--
If John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination,
my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin.

clifto wrote:



The height of the orbit has EVERYTHING to do with it.

You're right, of course. I sent a too hasty response to LMFAceO when I
interpreted his posting as saying that the great distance was
responsible for the 'apparent' stationary state.

My apologies.

==============================================
The orbital velocity of the satellite depends on its altitude above
Earth. The nearer Earth, the faster the required orbital velocity. At an
altitude of 124 miles (200 kilometers), the required orbital velocity is
just over 17,000 mph (about 27,400 kph). To maintain an orbit that is
22,223 miles (35,786 km) above Earth, the satellite must orbit at a
speed of about 7,000 mph (11,300 kph). That orbital speed and distance
permits the satellite to make one revolution in 24 hours. Since Earth
also rotates once in 24 hours, a satellite at 22,223 miles altitude
stays in a fixed position relative to a point on Earth's surface.
Because the satellite stays right over the same spot all the time, this
kind of orbit is called "geostationary."

http://www.allgoodpeople.net/showthr...?t=2115&page=2

================================================


mike

It also depends on the mass of the planet but not it's diameter. If the
earth had it's current size and rotational rate but was more or less
massive (density) ,the geostationary altitude would be higher or lower
respectively.


m II wrote:
clifto wrote:



The height of the orbit has EVERYTHING to do with it.


You're right, of course. I sent a too hasty response to LMFAceO when I
interpreted his posting as saying that the great distance was
responsible for the 'apparent' stationary state.

My apologies.

==============================================
The orbital velocity of the satellite depends on its altitude above
Earth. The nearer Earth, the faster the required orbital velocity. At an
altitude of 124 miles (200 kilometers), the required orbital velocity is
just over 17,000 mph (about 27,400 kph). To maintain an orbit that is
22,223 miles (35,786 km) above Earth, the satellite must orbit at a
speed of about 7,000 mph (11,300 kph). That orbital speed and distance
permits the satellite to make one revolution in 24 hours. Since Earth
also rotates once in 24 hours, a satellite at 22,223 miles altitude
stays in a fixed position relative to a point on Earth's surface.
Because the satellite stays right over the same spot all the time, this
kind of orbit is called "geostationary."

http://www.allgoodpeople.net/showthr...?t=2115&page=2

================================================


mike

Jules Verne figured it out long before Clark.





On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 14:50:55 -0600, clifto wrote:

m II wrote:
dxAce wrote:
They are not stationary, however they are in orbit so far above the planet that
they 'appear' to be stationary.

The height of the orbit has not much to do with it. It's the fact that
they are orbiting the planet at the same rate as it turns that makes all
the difference.

The height of the orbit has EVERYTHING to do with it. The height of the orbit
is what causes the geosynchronicity. Arthur C. Clarke figured it out. His
first known mention of the subject indicates clearly that the height is of
the essence to the geostationary natu

"An 'artificial satellite' at the correct distance from the earth would
make one revolution every 24 hours, i.e., it would remain stationary
above the same spot and would be within optical range of nearly half
the earth's surface. Three repeater stations, 120 degrees apart in the
correct orbit, could give television and microwave coverage to the
entire planet." -- Clarke, letter to Wireless World, 1945

wa5dxp wrote:
On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 14:50:55 -0600, clifto wrote:
The height of the orbit has EVERYTHING to do with it. The height of the orbit
is what causes the geosynchronicity. Arthur C. Clarke figured it out. His
first known mention of the subject indicates clearly that the height is of
the essence to the geostationary natu

"An 'artificial satellite' at the correct distance from the earth would
make one revolution every 24 hours, i.e., it would remain stationary
above the same spot and would be within optical range of nearly half
the earth's surface. Three repeater stations, 120 degrees apart in the
correct orbit, could give television and microwave coverage to the
entire planet." -- Clarke, letter to Wireless World, 1945

Jules Verne figured it out long before Clark.

If you say so. But they named that segment of space the Clarke Belt. And no
one else seems to mention Verne when discussing geosynchronicity.

--
If John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination,
my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin.