Talk:Transit (satellite)

Untitled

One excellent source that I have found on this topic is:

Seeber, G. (2003). Satellite Geodesy (2nd ed.). Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter.

The relevant sections can be found in a Google Books search for "satellite geodesy TRANSIT satellites" or follow this link:

http://books.google.com/books?id=MPTh9Muj1soC&pg=PA187&dq=satellite+geodesy+TRANSIT+satellites&sig=ubC-NYquhoLDWjcmRtu_AjxdeUA

ChrisTracy (talk) 23:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Is 'OSCAR' (see para 2 of History) correct?

OSCAR is an acronym for Orbiting Satellite Carrying Amateur Radio. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.114.203 (talk) 16:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I remember a satellite set called Oscar which was merely coincidental with respect to the amateur radio satellite. On Google near the location of this article is an article from the Applied Physics Laboratory describing the satellite system. I no reason to believe that this article is not correct. APL ran the Satellite Control Center when I was at Station 019 (and long before).

I would be interested in knowing who posted the photos of Station 019 as I was the undergraduate worker there in 1974. My partner/leader painted the Texas flag on the front of the satellite tracking station during the winter when the paint went on frozen and still dried. The Triad antenna was used to record magnetometer telemetry on magnetic tape from a satellite whose on board recorder failed and thus the satellite's telemetry had to be recorded in real time over the aurora oval. It could be RM who posted the photos or the crew after us. MF — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.166.67.173 (talk) 02:48, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Constant314 (talk) 03:30, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

==== OSCAR (all caps) is certainly incorrect and should be avoided. "Oscar" is correct.2A01:598:9984:66C4:A0AC:B119:3AEF:BD14 (talk) 13:42, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Transit Usage Years

The article states that Transit was used by thousands of warships etc. until 1991. I had a Mars/Vigil Navsat unit on board my sailboat that I used to cross the North Pacfic from Japan to Vancouver Island in August, 1993. So, I know that it was still quite usable at that time. And perhaps it was so until 1996. Perhaps someone else can provide a more definitive date as to when the system was decommissioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.151.217 (talk) 20:03, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

spaceborne 'mailboxes'

the term "spaceborne 'mailboxes'" should be explained 109.65.227.34 (talk) 12:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed! I can't find any viable reference online for the term.192.4.209.201 (talk) 19:58, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Demonstration

There is a demonstration of the field unit (in a field) on the 1978 TV series "Connections" with James Burke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.91.224.152 (talk) 11:39, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AN/UYK-1 Source

Found this as a possible source for a currently one sourced section "MICROELECTRONIC LOGIC IMPLEMENTATION FOR THE AN/UYK-1 COMPUTER" dtic.mil PDF. As the section was tagged as un-sourced I assumed it was, but it did already have one source. 220 of ^Borg 15:47, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Transit 5B-5 - oldest active satellite

Wouldn't it be noteworthy that Transit 5B-5 (launched 1964) is the oldest active satellite in space? It never went into operation because the data up/download link system failed after deployment into LEO. But since that day it transmits its doppler carrier and marker signals on 136.650 MHz, of course the batteries failed many years ago and so the electronics only function when the satellite is in sunlight. But it still manages to boot up most days, after more than 50 years of operation, and can be received using simple handheld scanners. It's considered an admirable "space monument" by sat enthusiasts. 176.0.30.145 (talk) 18:36, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, if you have a reliable source. Constant314 (talk) 06:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to find highly official sources of course, it's just a "known fact" in the community. First off, let me correct myself. Transit 5B-5 / Oscar-2 is still transmitting the PAM-encoded telemetry signal centered at ~136.650 MHz, the 2 navigational 150/400 MHz transmitters providing the carrier signals for positioning and time information stopped working after 19 days in orbit. Apparently it also stopped reacting to control commands from the ground stations, which is the most likely reason why it was never turned off like its siblings.

That 5B-5 is still broadcasting was for the most part published by Maik Hermenau, owner of the German satellite website www.satellitenwelt.de - here: http://www.satellitenwelt.de/transit_5b-5.htm#Mitschnitte

This satellite frequency list confirms that 5B-5 was heard last on November 10th 2015: http://www.satellitenwelt.de/satfreq_vhf.htm Also this one: http://mdkenny.customer.netspace.net.au/emitters.html And this one: https://sdrsatellitesounds.wordpress.com/2015/03/14/transit-5b-5-observations-from-14-03-2015/

I'm afraid that's all we got.176.0.103.145 (talk) 08:38, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The source doesn't have to be official, but it has to be reliable. Internet sources can be reliable, but some of them are junk. Assuming your source is reliable, it sounds like you have enough to say that 5B-5 exists, was launched in 1964 and was still transmitting as of Nov 2015. But the claim that it is the oldest still active probably needs a more explicit source. Constant314 (talk) 10:53, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TRANSIT or just Transit?

The intro says TRANSIT, but the name was never really capitalized except in old documents where project names were often capitalized for style reasons, just to help them stand out. Certainly Transit isn't an acronym or abbreviation for anything, as sources tend to confirm when they touch on the question at all, e.g. this book.

Does anyone have a reason for not knocking it down to just "Transit"? 71.197.166.72 (talk) 09:40, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems reasonable at present, as the uppercase form only seems to be used once. You could change it, and probably footnote this, if you wish. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:00, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Failure

Why did Transit 1A and 5A-2 both fail to reach orbit? 50.64.119.38 (talk) 08:00, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Transit (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/20130522015121/http://www.astronautix.com/craft/tsikada.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/craft/tsikada.htm

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) 20:33, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Transit Satellites section

@4throck, reviewing your edit that added the Transit Satellites section, I see a link named Transit 5BN 1. When I click the link, it instead targets the page Transit 5E-1. Looking closely at that article, I don’t see any mention of 5BN 1 at all. Was your edit there a typo or other simple mistake, or was it intended? — TadgStirkland⁴⁰¹ (Tadg^Talk) 17:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They were launched together, but you are right, they are different satellites:

https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/spacecraft/display.action?id=1963-038B

https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/spacecraft/display.action?id=1963-038C

I'll remove the link 4throck (talk) 23:03, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Military electronics

@Constant314, I don’t understand your last two edits removing the See also links to the Electronics portal and to the List of military electronics of the United States. Clearly this article describes quite a bit of history regarding early application of electronics in global positioning specifically for military use by the US Navy. It also specifically details the history of the AN/UYK-1 computer. Why would you remove those two links? The Electronics portal can exist along with the Spaceflight portal. — TadgStirkland⁴⁰¹ (Tadg^Talk) 04:23, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Also should be a curated list of specific topics aimed at the reader of the article. A monster list is not appropriate. That is like saying "hey, there might be something here." The funnel is going the wrong way. A specific item on that list might be appropriate. The electronics portal is excessively broad. Constant314 (talk) 05:51, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with Constant314 here. There's only one link in that linked list article that really justifies itself to the See also level, so it would be better to just link to that one article or list entry (link the list, but with a fragment identifier). However the only content we have for that topic is back on this same page! So not really a good link at all. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:36, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]