Talk:List of orbits

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Spaceflight Top‑importance

	Spaceflight portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

‹See TfM›

Physics Low‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Astronomy: Solar System Low‑importance

	Astronomy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Solar System task force (assessed as Low-importance).

"Exo Orbit?"

I've read the "orbital spaceflight" page and I'm terribly confused as to how "orbital spaceflight" and "exo orbit" can be considered synonymous. Exo orbits seem to be a small subset of orbital spaceflight. I guess I'd like some clarification from someone with more of a clue before I arbitrarily change the page there.

If you please? 207.224.60.36 (talk) 03:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Equatorial Orbit"

Recommend adding equatorial orbit for low inclination / low Earth orbit (LEO) objects. While equatorial orbits are a subset of LEO, the specialized nature (~90 min revisit time) is a useful niche orbit with advantages over typical 'global' coverage LEO objects with much longer revisit times. Taka2007 (talk) 17:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Copy Vio?

Some of the text of this article appears as if it may have been copied from another source. Consider the reference to "Figure 8", which clearly does not exist in the article, unless it has been massively edited.Blazotron (talk) 06:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, "figure 8" refers to the pattern the satellite traces out on the sky, not a non-existent figure in the article. LouScheffer (talk) 04:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm in orbit?"

"Low Earth orbit (LEO): Geocentric orbits ranging in altitude from 0–2,000 km (0–1,240 miles)"

I'm currently geocentric at an altitude of 0.1 Km. Does that mean I'm in LEO too? Xyonofcalhoun (talk) 11:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you are standing or sitting, no, since you are supported by the ground and not in free-fall. But if you jump, you technically are in an orbit - a very long thin orbit that passes very close to the center of the earth, and peaks at the antipode of where you are located. However, before you can get very far along this orbit, you'll re-intersect the surface of the Earth. LouScheffer (talk) 03:22, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm.. but according to the opening paragraph of Low Earth Orbit: "the commonly accepted definition for LEO is between 160 - 2,000 km"? This should probably be reflected in the article. Mlm42 (talk) 03:32, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why antipode? —Tamfang (talk) 06:34, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merger

There is a proposal to merge the section Orbit#Orbit types into this article. I think this is a good idea, due to the duplicated information; in particular, the section in the Orbit article could be unlistified, and reduced. Mlm42 (talk) 01:08, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The information pertaining to the satellites orbit is specific to Earth orbit definitions and would need to be completely rewritten to fit within the broader scope defined as Orbits. Some of the information could be combined, however, the improvement is minimal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.121.98.73 (talk) 01:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heliocentric Orbit

In the section "centric classifications" the article states that a a heliocentric orbit is an orbit around the Sun. Then it says that planets, asteroids and comets are in heliocentric orbit in our Solar System. Since the Sun is a name reffering only to the star at the center of our Solar System, surely the statement that these objects are in heliocentric orbit in our Solar System is unnecessary? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.34.41.239 (talk) 03:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Supersynchronous orbit

Article includes: " Supersynchronous orbit: A disposal / storage orbit above GSO/GEO. Satellites will drift west. Also a synonym for Disposal orbit.".

That does not accommodate usage of the term in http://spaceflightnow.com/delta/d358/ : "The Wideband Global SATCOM 4 spacecraft, better known as WGS 4, rode a United Launch Alliance Delta 4 rocket away from the Florida spaceport's pad 37B at 7:38 p.m. EST (0038 GMT) on a 40-minute ascent to supersynchronous orbit.".

Should it? 94.30.84.71 (talk) 12:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That would have been a "supersynchronous transfer orbit" - another case is planned for tomorrow. 94.30.84.71 (talk) 21:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retograde orbit

I don't understand what the reference to the moon has to do with this section.

It might also be interesting to note that Israel launches her satellites into retrograde orbit, both so that any mishaps will wind up in the Mediteranian, and so that her neighbors to the east will not mistake a space launch as an act of war. 99.108.140.97 (talk) 19:31, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Missing GTO?

Isn't this missing the Geostationary Transfer Orbit (GTO)? I don't know much about the differences and classifications, but it's got its own page and is listed numerous times on other pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.91.66.116 (talk) 08:12, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not missing. See the third bullet under "Eccentricity classifications". —Swpb^talk 12:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Citation Needed on galactocentric orbit? Really?

′The Sun follows this type of orbit about the galactic center of the Milky Way.[citation needed] ′

Do we really need a citation here? What would serve as an accurate citation?

StandaloneSA (talk) 16:50, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of orbits. 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) 12:04, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

or rather

Prograde orbit: An orbit with an inclination of less than 90°. Or rather, an orbit that is in the same direction as the rotation of the primary.

(And similarly for retrograde.) "Or rather" implies that the first definition is wrong, raising the question of why it's put first! Is there a good reason not to replace "Or rather" with "equivalently"? —Tamfang (talk) 17:14, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers in each orbit?

Is there a list of satellites by (major) orbit type? I'm curious what the numbers are for polar, sun-sync, geo, etc. William M. Connolley (talk) 16:15, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Polar orbit?

Has any government or private organization ever tried to put a satellite into orbit, which crosses over the South Pole, and the northern Arctic circle, and if not, why? Theewtgy (talk) 17:17, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Non Standard Terminology

Many of the items on the list are terminology not standardly used in the field, and in many cases words proposed by one person but not adopted in the aerospace or astronomical communities.

I'd suggest deleting orbit names that are (1) non-standard terminology, which (2) have no citations to reliable sources showing use in the aerospace or astronomical communities. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 14:52, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dispersal orbit?

I don't know enough about orbits to edit this, but it looks to me as though where it says "dispersal orbit", it should say disposal orbit?--Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:24, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More simplified information up front

There a number of other orbit articles that try to keep things simple in listing different orbit. I believe the actual issue is the intro of this page is too complicated. A simple list for folks new to orbits, followed by the details should greatly help to keep a consolidated easy to understand page that has the List of orbits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zygerth (talk • contribs) 20:56, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Constellatiocentric

Zodiac houses; (Scorpio, Cancer, etc.) Habatchii (talk) 13:49, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you hinting at a type of orbit? Consider writing a full sentence. —Tamfang (talk) 22:57, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

figure-eight orbit

not to be confused with the geosynchronous orbit, there is a stable orbit that three objects can share, each simultaneously orbiting the other two. i thought i read about it here, but for now i've found it at this page. I wonder if the baby is still looking at the last animation. —Soap— 14:23, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Centric classification terminology?

the current terms used in this section are shaped mostly by two edits A B. edit A introduced the term "poseidocentric", with that acknowledgement that it was not attested. in later edits this terms seem to have been repeatedly removed and reintroduced (notably by edits [1] and B), losing the [citation needed] tag somewhere down the line. this term is still hardly attested (two hits on google scholar -- both in recent years, which suggests that this could be a xkcd 978 scenario -- and no hit on google books).

"cytherocentric" (introduced i think by edit B above) and "cytheriocentric" (used on the page before edit B) are both very rarely used (one or two hits on google scholar [2] [3]). the slightly more established term seems to be "aphrodiocentric" ([4]), which was in the page but was removed by edit B with no reason given.

edit B also changed "kronocentric" to "cronocentric", apparently considering the former as a "misspelling", but for things related to Saturn, "krono-" seems to be more common than "crono-" (compare the google scholar hits for kronocentric (200+) and cronocentric (10-)).

finally, edit B introduced the term "hadeocentric", which seems to be an analogous coinage -- makes sense, but doesn't seem to actually be used anywhere (no google scholar or google books hits at all).

if anyone more knowledgeable in the field could look into the terminology here (and on other relevant pages), it would be greatly appreciated. ragweed theater _{talk, wikt} 16:33, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of these terms doesn't seem to add much value; instead they distract from the useful content of the article. I would support deleting them entirely. (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 18:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

not really the discussion of those terms that's the problem here -- i agree the etymologies and such could be left out (the terms themselves are useful information if they are actually used). the greater issue here is that some of the terms don't seem to be actually recognized terminology in the field at all. ragweed theater _{talk, wikt} 20:35, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MADEUP seems to apply. I advocate removing the material and suggesting the corresponding redirects be deleted. That might seem harsh, but really we don't want the encyclopedia used to make stuff up and have it creep out to other places which then become "sources." (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 06:16, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

agreed. the ones that are most certainly made up are "poseidocentric" and "hadeocentric", and "cytherocentric" is at best very dubious. i'd support removing this trio entirely. other "-centric" terms listed here do seem to be actually in use.

p.s. "cytherocentric" is used in a handful of other Wikipedia pages, notably in the title of Cytherocentric orbit. we might need to decide what to do with those pages. ragweed theater _{talk, wikt} 09:04, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]