text:
Talk:Geostationary orbit

From Votes for deletion page
The two are not the same. A geosynchronous orbit can deviate from the equator, whereas a geostationary orbit cannot.
 * Either Geostationary orbit or Geosynchronous orbit should be turned into a redirection page to the other, as they are both the same thing. - Geostationary orbit seems to be the more commonly used (gets 65,000 results on google, versus 22000 for the other one). - And the information from the two should be merged into one as well...
 * Actually "geostationary orbit" gets around 30000 results on Google, not counting Wikipedia hits. "Geosynchronous" is the only one I've ever heard of. silsor 19:49, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)
 * Assuming they actually mean the same, I've heard of geosynchronous, and vote that that title be the one kept. Anthony DiPierro 20:14, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * This is a redirect question, not a delete question. Let's move the discussion to one of the Talk pages. Rossami 20:18, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * "Geosynchronous" orbit is the more common term in my experience. I vote for a merge and redirect to Geosynchronous orbit. The highly technical distinction between the two is already well covered in the Geosynchronous orbit article.Rossami 20:22, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Support redirect to "Geosynchronous" -- Decumanus 20:23, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Actually it's not quite the same thing; a geostationary orbit is a special case of geosynchronous orbit. (That fact already is noted in the article.) Mkweise 20:34, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Agree. Geosynchronous Orbit is the broader term, so the other should redirect there. --Palapala 21:53, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * It does not look like this discussion is very active nowadays (mid-May 2006), but my vote would be to keep both pages and cross-reference them. There is an infinity of geosynchronous orbits, but there is only one geostationary orbit. Most (if not all) of our meteorological, communication and TV satellites are on the same geostationary orbit, where they follow each other. --Michel M Verstraete 21:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC).

 * This discussion is both obsolete (because there is now a page for Geosynchronous orbit, and false, as the above comments show. I will delete it in a few days, if I get no adverse comments. Fpoto (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 10:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

GSO
I was redircted here looking for GSO - a type of inorganic crystal used as a scintillator in nuclear medicine imaging (SPECT, PET, etc.) GSO is an abbreviation of cerium-doped gadolinium oxyorthosilicate.
 * I added an entry at GSO based on your description; thanks. Wmahan. 18:20, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

wrong
"Any point on the equator plane revolves about the Earth in the same direction and with the same period (speed) as the Earth's rotation." This is bogus. points do not revolve. The gravitational pull of the Earth provides the central force necessary for circular motion of objects in space with a specific velocity. This is independent of the motions of the Earth's surface. For a satellite of given mass, there is a specific height at which it could be geosynchronous if it is given the correct initial velocity. --MarSch 14:28, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

mass need not be given

 * This observation is partly obsolete — because the word "revolve" is no longer there — and partly wrong — because geosynchronicity is independent of the satellite mass (as the comment above this one suggests). For this reason, I will delete this paragraph in a few days, if no one objects. Fpoto (talk) 09:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Number of Satellites
How many geostationary satellites are up there? Do they stay there when they cease to function? Is it a stable orbit that could eventually cause other geostationary satellites to risk collosion from large numbers accumulating?

 * I don't know the numbers off the top of my head, but there are a number of satellite catalog pages that should be able to tell you. They do indeed stay up when they cease to function (it's only in low orbit that you have enough air resistance for orbits to decay). I seem to recall that organizations with satellites were encouraged to move them either into parking orbits or an earth-intersecting orbit when their useful life ended, but I don't think this happens for all satellites. As for collisions, the main risk isn't satellites themselves, but bits of metal and other debris that's kicked up as a result of micrometeorite impacts. This is discussed in more detail at space debris. --Christopher Thomas 20:08, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

 * There are several hundred "Active" geostationary satellites. The Inter-Agency Debris Coordination Committee (most international space orgs) develops guidelines for end-of-life procedures.  In a nutshell, move it above GEO by at least 200 km (US govt moves up by +300km) and then remove all potential energy storage (e.g. drain batteries, vent fuel, etc). —Taka2007 14:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

 * A GEO must be maintained with somewhere in the ballpark of 50-63m/s of delta-v per year depending on how accurately you want your spacecraft to stay on station. If a GEO spacecraft dies on station (that is, without a deorbit maneuver to a graveyard orbit; to the best of my knowledge, no GEO spacecraft has ever deorbited to an Earth entry and I know it would be less delta-v to crash it into the Moon) it soon leaves GEO because of perturbations from the Moon and Sun.  It will stay in the ballpark of GEO for at least several hundred years.  If I remember correctly, lunar perturbation tends to raise GEO spacecraft orbits, so it will wind up in the standard graveyard area Taka2007 described within a couple of years.  Also, modern spacecraft are engineered so that their solar panels degrade to a minimum payload power specification at about the same time they run out of orbit maintenance propellant.  This isn't "dead" by anyone's definition, but without enough power to run the transponders and no ability to stay where the thousands of bolted-down rooftop satellite dishes are pointed at in the sky, it can't make money.  Older (1965-73ish) spinners weren't totally useless in this condition, but a modern body-stabilized spacecraft with solar wings and high-gain dishes also loses attitude control when it runs out of propellant (not instantly, as its reaction wheels take a couple weeks to spin up to their limits), so it'll die pretty fast.  Also, unlike in the 1960s when your typical satellite customer had a 20m steerable antenna and knew how to use it, the typical modern satellite customer might not even remember where on his roof the 16in dish has been bolted.  So back in the day, a satellite designed to maintain GEO for three years was often still being used 20 years after it was launched.  These days, the satellite is designed to maintain GEO for 20 years, but becomes quite useless once it can't (that's part of the reason why they've grown from 50kg to 6,000kg, but the big reason is that the receiving stations have shrunk even faster... you could probably throw a modern satellite receiver about the same distance as a 1960s station's diameter.)  As for the collision hazard, "Space is Big" - Stardock Software, Galactic Civilizations 2, 2007.  Low orbit has more spacecraft in a smaller space moving over twice as fast and over a far wider variety of inclinations; it's a bit like comparing the Indianapolis 500 to a demolition derby, except that you'd have to put the demolition beaters on the Indianapolis oval and the formula racers in the demolition ring to model the speed difference.  I'd expect several dozen LEO collisions to occur before the first one near GEO was detected. Featherwinglove (talk) 18:36, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

 * Well...that's a seven-eight year old conversation, so I'm not sure anyone really reads them. On the other hand, you sound like you really know exactly what you're talking about, so maybe you could expand the corresponding section of this article. —  Reatlas  (talk)  04:56, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Use of Newton's first law is completely bogus
Orbiting satellites are not under the influence of balanced forces, and one can *never* balance centripetal force with centrifugal force. The derivation is numerically correct, but conceptually flawed. The derivation should begin with Fc = FG, giving the source of the accelerating centripetal force.

Phillychuck 03:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)phillychuck, Physicist

 * Indeed, this explanation is completely wrong: it appears to suggest that the satellite is subjected to two equal and opposite forces (which it is not, of course). If that were the case, the resultant force would be null and the satellite would pursue its trajectory in a straight line! --Michel M Verstraete 22:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC).

 * This appears to be a question of terminology. If you set up the problem using polar coordinates, you get equal and opposite radial forces, resulting in the second derivative of radius (radial acceleration) being zero. This is the way orbits are usually described in high school textbooks. In undergrad texts (in engineering, at least), the same type of coordinate system is used to derive Kepler's laws for elliptical orbits, as it's far easier to do that in polar coordinates than in Cartesian coordinates. --Christopher Thomas 06:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The appropriate derivation is F=ma, using vectors, where F and a constantly point to the center of mass of the object being orbited. F is Newton's gravitational force = mMG/r^2. a can be simplified to a circular orbit, since that is what we are discussing with geostationary objects. a=vt^2/r. The only reason it remains in orbit is because there is an initial velocity tangent to the acceleration. There is a certain altitude where the angular velocity necessary for a circular orbit path coincides with the angular velocity of the earth and thus the object in orbit appears to be stationary over the same spot on earth for its entire orbit. This is a geostationary orbit. It must be directly over the equator for this to work. If it is off to the north or south, the object will still be geosynchronous, but its ground track will move north and south along a line centered on the equator. If the orbit is also slightly non-circular, its ground track will resemble a figure-8 centered on the equator. "Geostationary" is indeed a special case of a Geosynchronous Earth Orbit (GEO). I vote that the topics be merged under Geosynchronous Earth Orbit.--Someone

 * Even a circular inclined orbit has a figure-8 ground track, since the eastward component of the satellite's velocity varies with latitude. —wwoods 17:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

It's very easy to apply F=ma for a circular orbit, and less confusing than introducing the noninertial centrifugal force. I rewrote the section accordingly. Use of the first law is indeed bogus, but the second law is what we need. --Mike 18:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Not much of a physicist myself, but I also get the impression something is terribly wrong here, the text seems to accredit the notion that the centripetal force is distinct from the gravitational force, where two "distinct" forces pulling in the same direction would miraculously cancel out to allow for orbital motion . Isn't there a mistake here and centripetal acceleration here should be centrifugal ?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.190.24.84 (talk) 11:32, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The centripetal force required to keep the object moving in a circle is provided by gravity. I don't see anywhere in the (2019) article saying they are "distinct"? Burninthruthesky (talk) 07:36, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The centrifugal force is a fictitious force. It can be viewed as a reaction to the centripetal force caused by gravity. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 15:48, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

GeoStationary & GeoSynchronus Orbits Merged
Geostationary and geosynchronus is not the same thing. It is two different things. This is an applied scientific fact.

The two articles should be merged and redirected to an article called Sattelite Orbit Types. This article should reassemble the different articles into Types of Orbits.

In fact, they are really types of orbit and mergance of article will just make things easier and clearer of access.

Here is a simple graphic explaning the basics of Geostationary and Geosynchronus with a fixed earth example. Just figure it out as if the earth was rotating, making Geostationary sattelites still in movement.

 * Sirius Sattelites : Geosynchronus
 * XM Satellites : Geostationary

What exactly is the difference between geosynchronous and geostationary? Is geostationary a special case of geosynchronous...or vice versa?75.45.114.217 (talk) 05:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

GEO is sub-set of GSO
Geostationary orbits are a sub-set of GSO. It's a GSO orbit with zero inclination.

I've been involved in space operations for 9 years. I've operated a constellation of comm satellites for 3 plus years. As much as some people won't like it, we used geostationary 90% of the time to describe our orbits, even though they had a non-zero inclination (~1°). I would, however, have a problem with calling GSO orbits with significantly larger inclinations, GEO orbits. Not sure where I would draw the line though.

Possibly look at where the drop off in number of satellites at that altitude (i.e., if there is a significant decrease in the number of satellites below an inclination of i°, then that would be the switch over between GEO and GSO).

Of course, this reminds me of the whole debate about Pluto. I don't have much of a problem with the demotion of Pluto. My self-arguments were that there needed to be some scientific dividing line. That is completely the opposite of the fuzzy justification I gave above for dividing between GEO and GSO. —Taka2007 14:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think these should be merged, leaving GSO as the final artilce. Bearian 15:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

GEO is sub-set of GSO: I agree
I agree that the geostationary orbits are (merely) a subset of GSO, but they are a very important subset with unique and practically valuable properties for satellites, so a separate page seems to be merited. Martin 11:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

 * I agree. However, in my experience, "geostationary" is commonly used for a lot of satellites that are actually "geosynchronous".  I'd be willing to bet that if I asked some of the operators I used to work with what the difference between geostationary and geosynchronous was, they'd be stumped.  We very rarely used the term "geosynchronous" even though the satellites we were dealing with were not geostationary.  However, the satellites we dealt with had an inclination less than 1°, thus the figure eight ground track was very small.  Still we probably should be trying to get people to use the correct terminology. - Taka2007 17:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

 * The IADC is not consistent with their use of GEO. Their Protection Manual, the IADC defines GEO as geosynchronous orbit.  In a Support Document they also define the Geosynchronous Region as Geostationary orbit ±200 km and ± 15°. - Taka2007 19:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

GEO is sub-set of GSO
There are articles on Wikipedia that have GEO as Geostationary and GSO as Geosynchronous and there are others with the opposite abreviations. Which is correct?
 * For what it's worth, I think these are foolish abbreviations to use. Just go with g-synch and g-stat.  :)  Avraham 02:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Non-Merging
OK, first of all, let me say I agree with basically what everyone has said so far. Yes, yes, yes, the two are not the same (although it's true that common usage is not really picky about their usages. Even physics students often used g-synch as a fancy name for g-stat.  Compare naueous v. sick or infer v. imply) however that is not the issue. The issue with a merger is (1) is this article part of a broader category? and (2) if so, is it big enough to stand on its own? I think it's clear to everyone here that the answer to both those questions is yes. OK, fine, usage is sloppy, but we all know the two are seperate. However, we also all know that (a) g-stat (or near g-stat) is an extremely important case of g-synch and (b) (though this is more controversial) the Geostationary orbit article is beefy enough to stand on its own, and has potential for a lot more growth. Because everyone seems to agree with these points, and because the leaning from more recent posts seems to heavily favor my conclusion, I am removing the merge tags. Hope I don't get killed... Avraham 02:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

PS: The g-synch article DEFINITELY needs a section on g-stat. So if someone knowledgable, such as Taka, can write a good section there, I think that would be immensely helpful! Thanks, Avraham 02:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

 * There seems to be consensus that the two articles should not be merged; I am removing the merge tag. — Swpb talk contribs 00:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Altitude vs. Mass
It should be clarified that, as a principal of physics, geostationary orbit altitude around Earth varies with the mass of the orbiting object, and that 35,786 km is only a practical reference figure that applies to objects of approximately the mass of current man-made satellites.

(If I'm not mistaken.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.6.224.142 (talk) 22:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

 * If you look through the equations, you'll see that the mass of the satelite ("msat") falls out of the equation really early on -- not through approximation, but through cancellation. It's counter-intuitive, but that's how the math goes. A similar result that surprised me when I first saw it: Suppose you set up a ramp to jump a creek, just like in the movies. You can calculate the speed you need to hit in order to make it across... and that speed is the same whether you're on a moped or in a fully-loaded dumptruck. Same result on the speed needed to complete a loopty loop (how do you spell it!? lol) . - grubber 23:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Grubber is right, at that point its more or less a matter of the amount of thrust required and the payload capacity of the launch vehicle that will determine wether or not a Geostationary orbit can be achived. That boils down to good old fasioned Aerospace engineering aka. rocket Science.M jurrens 19:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Ooh, I think this one is tricky! For a 24-hour orbit around the Earth, the distance of the satellite from the barycenter of the two-body system (which is still a simplification) is invariant with the satellite's mass. But consider a satellite as massive as the Moon, but in a geostationary orbit: the barycenter would be above the surface of the Earth, and thus the altitude would be less than for a satellite with negligible mass! The given altitude is correct only if -- as in the case of anything launched by human endeavor to date -- the mass of the satellite is much (much!) less than the mass of the Earth. I don't think the article needs to cover the hypothetical case of a satellite of sufficient mass to make this a practical consideration.... (sdsds - talk) 04:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

 * This boils down to the fact that the equations in the article are valid in the approximation of satellite mass much less than the Earth's mass. I am going to write a note explaining that, after which this section could be deleted. Fpoto (talk) 09:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Fpoto, you're quite right (I think), and your footnote is relatively well-written (I think) - however, it cites no authority at all, we generally dislike bald statements purporting to be fact - even when it's plain to some that the statement is a fact. Put another way, can you find a better way to state the relative mass assumption, using either a math equation in the article, or a reliable source in the footnote? Thanks! Franamax (talk) 11:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

 * In Geocentric_gravitational_constant the approximation is described, so the part of my note claiming that this is a standard approximation can have a foundation there. The fact that 10-20 is negligible for any practical purposes could be justified, but that seems overkill to me. The fact that the error is in fact 10-20 is based on the equation in Geocentric_gravitational_constant, by comparing the circular orbit equation in the cases of small body and general case. You see that the equations are the same, the only difference being the masses (the Earth's mass in the simple case, the sum of masses in the general case). In this article, the error is on the equation
 * $$r = \sqrt[3]{\frac{G M}{\omega^2}}$$.
 * If the satellite has weight eM, being M the Earth's mass given in the article, the relative error on M in the above equation is e and consequently the relative error on the resulting r is e/3. Supposing a satellite's weight of 2e5 kg, which is the weight of the ISS orbital station, e is 3e-20 and the error on r is 1e-20, which justifies my claim.  Do you think that a concise version of this derivation should go into the note? Fpoto (talk) 08:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm - I'm not sure how messy a tag will make a footnote look, but that would be one option (and maybe change "independent of the mass of the satellite" to "independent of mass when the satellite mass is relatively small"?). The other way would be to work your derivation into the main text, something like "the calculation above has a small error, since the centre of orbit is not exactly at the centre of the Earth ...[succinct proof]". Your math looks reasonable, I'm not qualified to judge it - but if you can find a way to show it, all the better, I'm sure lots of other people will be happy to look it over :) Franamax (talk) 09:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

 * No, I did not mean to put the equation into the note, just to explain here (in the discussion page) how it was derived. The fact is, an error of 1e-20 is not only negligible for any practical purpose, which is what I wrote, and which I will correct, but it is negligible for any purpose whatsoever. On one side, such an error on the GEO altitude would be about one thousandth of a neutron's diameter; on the other side, it is 10 orders of magnitude less than the error on the geocentric gravitational constant, so in fact there is no error at all (which is the main point I should highlight in the note). And this is valid for a satellite the mass of the ISS, which is by far the bulkiest satellite ever. To get a significant error (say, 1e-10), you would need an object 10 billions times as bulky as the ISS. So it is like explaining why a mountain does not stir when you break an egg on it. Anyway, thank you for this discussion, which has helped me clarify in my mind what exactly is negligible: I will soon change the note to better explain that, after which I hope you will comment on my changes. Fpoto (talk) 10:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Fpoto, I think you've done it quite well. For anyone with a casual question, you've given an explanation; for those of a more technical bent who might want to challenge the approximation, you've given all the clues for them to work it out for themselves. Looks good to me, we'll see if any other comments come up. Franamax (talk) 03:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

List of satellites in geostationary orbit
We need a list of satellites in geostationary orbit. Would it be copyvio to use this information? -- Petri Krohn 15:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

 * It would be great to find a second (and third and fourth) source of information, and for each entry in the table cite at least two. The obvious place to go is the NASA nssdc catalog. If you confirm the information in two sources before adding an entry to the table, there's little chance of someone claiming a copyright violation. On the other hand if you copy the entire table from a single source without cross-checking each entry, there might be some valid concerns raised! (sdsds - talk) 22:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Don't overlook List of satellites in geosynchronous orbit. (sdsds - talk) 07:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

 * The best source of orbital data for the Earth's satellites (except US spy ones) is the Space Track web site. Alas, you should register (for free) to get access to the database. Makeyev (talk) 10:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Property tax issues
I have removed the paragraph about LA County Tax Assessor wanting to assess tax on satellites. The issue came about because the company that manufactures the satellite was located in Los Angeles County, not because the satellite was supposedly flying over Los Angeles County. Nothing in the reference suggested that a geostationary orbit had any issue with the assessment of the property tax. --Mr. PIM 05:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Clarke Orbit
According to this NY Times obit, the IAU "officially designated" this the Clarke Orbit. If true, probably worth a note here. William Pietri (talk) 14:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

going to class B
Reading the description for B-class, I think this is good for B class, and maybe even to ask revision for GA. However, I have no experience on that. Could anyone comment on this? Can I just change the status from Start to B myself? Fpoto (talk) 10:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

 * In several places the article currently makes assertions without providing reliable source citations. I would not support rating the article as B-class until reliable sources are cited for every major assertion. (sdsds - talk) 22:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Usage
I put in a little more about the usage "geostationary" versus the older usage "geosynchronous." The "geostationary"-purists like to find and delete all usages of the word "geosynchronous" to mean "geostationary," but in fact, in the real world the two words are used entirely interchangably-- geosynch is a little older usage, and geostationary a little newer. Frankly, I far prefer "geosynchronous", but geostationary is beginning to be seen more and more. (Every time I hear it, though, I wince, because I know that it means I'm going to have to explain yet again to somebody that no, the orbit isn't really stationary, it's moving, and you can't be "geo" stationary over any point other than the equator. You can't park a satellite in "Geostationary" orbit over Antarctica, because "stationary" really means "synchronous," not "stationary".) Geoffrey.landis (talk) 21:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I wish I had good source citations for this! I believe there is a major difference between these two terms. An orbit is only geostationary when it is circular and directly over the equator. On the other hand, any orbit -- even one with high inclination and eccentricity -- is geosyncrhonous if the orbiting object circles the earth in exactly the time required for one Earth rotation. (sdsds - talk) 05:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "I believe there is a major difference between these two terms." Yes, you might think.  In actual use, though, they have always been used interchangably.  The term "geostationary" orbit (which is not actually stationary, of course) is begining to supplant "geosynchronous," but both terms are used. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 01:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please examine non-Wikipedia sources like the GOES project website. Does that leave any doubt about the use of "geostationary"? By the way you are of course correct: no object in orbit is stationary! And of course you are also correct: every object in "geostationary" orbit is also correctly described as being in "geosynchronous" orbit! But an object can be in an orbit which is properly called "geosynchronous" but which cannot properly be called "geostationary". Please, if inserting into the article the assertion that these terms "have always been used interchangably", be sure to cite a reliable source to support that! (sdsds - talk) 01:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * (e/c) The terms may be used interchangeably in the industry, but I imagine the industry is mostly concerned with geostationary orbits (which are also geosynchronous). In the case of a polar geosynchronous orbit (are there any such satellites?), someone who called it geostationary would probably get laughed out of the lunch room.
 * We should note that geostationary orbits are commonly referred to as geosynchronous (which they are), but we shouldn't give the public the impression that the two terms are synonymous.
 * The article already makes clear what the "stationary" part means:
 * Geostationary orbits are useful because they cause a satellite to appear stationary with respect to a fixed point on the rotating Earth. Franamax (talk) 01:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Geoffrey, I've reverted your recent edit on the following basis:
 * Did you try to find the Potočnik reference before you deleted the text? It actually turned out to be pretty darn easy. Wait a few minutes while I figure out the cite book template and you'll be able to see it in the article.
 * Why are you blanket changing geostationary to geosynchronous? This article is about the geostationary orbit, the circular equatorial-plane special case of the generalized geosynchronous orbit, which is elliptical and variously oriented and centred. It seems to me too that when you change the derivation of altitude to say it is for a geosynchronous orbit, you introduce a factual error, since a geosynchronous orbit is elliptical and thus continuously varies in altitude. Per the discussion above, I don't think you've gained consensus to change the wording in this article. Franamax (talk) 20:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adding the Potočnik citation.
 * As for changing geostationary to geosynchronous in the derivation, the mathematical section I edited in fact derives how high an orbit must be in order to be synchronous with the Earth's rotation, that is, it derives the altitude of geosynchronous orbit. I suppose we probably should just delete the section out of this article, add it to the geosynchronous orbit article, and put in a link saying "the derivation is in the geosynchronous orbit article" but that seemed too complicated. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 03:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The section on altitude only makes sense for circular orbits, as the first four words make clear: "In any circular orbit, ...". A geostationary orbit is a circular equatorial geosynchronous orbit. But a geosynchronous orbit is generally elliptical, so no such a thing as the altitude of geosynchronous orbit exists, at least not as a single number. In this particular section, you could indeed replace geostationary with circular geosynchronous, but why? It is more complex and uselessly generic, as this article only speaks about geostationary orbits --Fpoto (talk) 13:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "Geosynchronous," as Wikipedia uses it, means an orbit that is synchronous with the Earth's rotation. The "Derivation of geostationary altitude"  section calculates "what orbital radius is needed to  make an orbit with the same period as the Earth's rotation?"  Therefore, prima facia, this section is calculating the radius of a geosynchronous orbit.  Since Wikipedia has defined "geostationary" as a subset of geosynchronous, then obviously once you know this you know the altitude of a geostationary orbit, but the calculation is independent of inclination-- it is purely a calculation of altitude needed for the orbit to be synchronous with the Earth's rotation.
 * As I wrote above, you cannot compute, in general, the "radius of a geosynchronous orbit", so you cannot simply substitute geostationary with geosynchronous. Regarding what you write below, the semimajor axis of an elliptic orbit is not its radius; this is significant because this section is devoted to altitude, and subtracting the Earth's radius from the semimajor axis does not give you altitude. --Fpoto (talk) 22:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * In fact, the calculation is done for circular orbits, but trivially, by Kepler's law, the period is proportional to the semimajor axis and is independent of eccentricity, so once you know this result, you know the semimajor axis for a geosynchronous orbit of any eccentricity. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 23:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * So what? This article is about the geostationary orbit and only about the geostationary orbit. The consideration that the same equations can be used to solve the general case of any geosynchronous orbit is of no interest to us here. Do you realize that we also have an article on the geosynchronous orbit general case where you can concentrate your efforts? Franamax (talk) 23:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This discussion has become tedious, so please pardon me if I do not continue. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 22:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

So if wikipedia were to use "geosynchronous" to mean circular and equatorial (just like geostationary), what term would we use for orbits with that exact same period but which are elliptical or inclined or both? One would want to call them "geosynchronous" too, since they are exactly in sync with the Earth's rotation. Is the assertion implicitly being made that these are not interesting cases? Or that for any interesting orbit in this class, there is some specific name, like tundra orbit? (sdsds - talk) 05:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that wikipedia should simply not use "geosynchronous" to mean circular and equatorial. --Fpoto (talk) 13:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Useless / confusing second image
The second image in the article, added about one year ago by User:Mike1024, is in my opinion out of scope and possibly confusing. If no one objects, I will remove it. --Pot (talk) 15:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Orbit lenght
Which one of these? I am for the former, the old version.
 * The Clarke Orbit is about 265,000 km (165,000 mi) long.
 * The Clarke Orbit is about 265,000 km (165,000 mi) in circumference.

An orbit is a path, a trajectory, and intuitively it has a length, as any path has. Sure, the second version is correct, but more complex, and uselessly so. --Pot (talk) 19:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The circumference seems to be calculated with the altitude substituted for the radius, thus giving a to short answer. Fabian85.228.229.105 (talk) 05:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC) I got my   math wrong, disregard my previous comment. Fabian 85.228.229.105 (talk) 02:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'd argue that saying circumference is more precise. It reminds one what part of the circle is of interest.75.45.114.217 (talk) 05:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Rumours
This is just about rumours:

Some people in the industry dislike the term "geostationary," because the orbit is not actually stationary (in fact, the term stationary orbit would be an oxymoron), and prefer to use geosynchronous" because it emphasizes the key point that the orbit is not actually stationary, but synchronized with the motion of the Earth surface.

This reasoning makes little sense for two reasons.

First the method: it can be argued that it is unimportant whether "geostationary" or "geosynchronous" can be significantly attributed to "orbit", because both are terms with a history and a dignity, not just pairs of words stuck together.

Second the merit: an orbit is a trajectory, and as such is "fixed" in the sky, so "geostationary orbit" is not an oxymoron. Orbits do not "move": it's the objects on them that move, so both "geostationary" and "geosynchronous" make perfect sense: one is about looking from the Earth's surface, the other is about looking from space.

I will delete the cited sentence if no one objects. --Pot (talk) 08:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this wording I think is the result of a discussion a year or so ago. I'd agree that at least "some people in the industry dislike" needs to go - which people, what industry, who what when? We should cover the fact that geostationary and geosynchronous have overlapping meanings though, and in the literature it's not uncommon to find this overlap. As I recall from last year, I'd seen some references presenting the geostationary equations but referring to them as geosynchronous orbital equations. We need to acknowledge this, but without the prejudical language. Franamax (talk) 10:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

 * It's not "geostationary" that is overlapping: in fact, some people simply do not use the word geostationary but use geosynchronous instead. I think this is not a problem to be covered here, but rather in the geosynchronous orbit page, where in fact it is. --Pot (talk) 12:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

 * I suppose no real-world orbit is ever precisely geostationary; everything is always wobbling a little relative to that. On the other hand some geosynchronous orbits are not remotely geostationary; and hence the problem.- Wolfkeeper  13:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

 * Well, I see no problem, in fact. Some people just do not like the term "geostationary", and they use the more generic term "geosynchronous" instead. I argue that geostationary orbit has nothing to say on this issue, because it is unambiguous. Some text is already present in geosynchronous orbit that mentions the issue, and that is enough, in my opinion. --Pot (talk) 17:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Libration points
Could someone clarify exactly what "libration points" are? The phrase was linked in the section where they are named, but that just redirects to Lagrangian point, which is unhelpful at best; if not directly misleading, so I unlinked that. There is also a link to Libration in the Lagrangian article, but that does not seem to be relevant either. Is the same term used for these three different things, or is there some connection that I just can't see? (For what it's worth, that short paragraph explains what it means in this context well, it's just the terminology that seems confusing to me.) -- magetoo 20:46, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Mikeo, could you explain why you deleted the part about libration points? --Pot (talk) 08:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

 * The first part of it was redundant in the article. In addition to that calling it "libration points" is unusual and misleading (see above comment by magetoo) - as this is normally only referring to the stationary solutions of the circular restricted three-body problem (the Lagrangian points). Someone had mixed things up. The thing which is causing the longitudal drift in GEO is (mainly) the second-order, second-degree component of Earth sperical harmonics (causing a slight periodic variation of the semimajor axis) - this is - in a little simlified version - explained in another part of the article). The second part was just plainly incorrect - there just are no 160 satellites gathered at these positions. Mikeo (talk) 16:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

 * Thank you. But what about this link where the same story is reported? Is it completely false? --Pot (talk) 16:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

 * Yes it is false (the gathering of the 160 satellites). Maybe the author of that article has misunderstood something. No reason for us to inherit that error. Mikeo (talk) 20:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Other planets
Should mention what similar orbits around bodies other than the Earth are called. SharkD  Talk  07:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Simplification?
I do not understand the simplicity of the section "Simplification", which is apparently only a redundant replica of the previous section (and has also internal redundancies). So, I will remove it, except perhaps the example of Mars, if nobody objects.--GianniG46 (talk) 20:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Picture suggestion
Penyulap  talk 20:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Conversion between units and precision
In the first line of the introductory paragraph is a precise conversion between kilometres and miles to one unit in each case. That's fine. But a few lines down, in reference to the "belt" containing the Clarke Orbit, the same very precise (to 1 km) metric measure is converted to a mileage seemingly specified to nothing more precise than the nearest thousand miles. 22000 miles (to the nearest mile) is 35406 km (to the nearest kilometre). Would it not be better from the point of view of a more appropriate level of precision to replace the latter distances by "35,400 km (22,000 mi)"?Jamjarface (talk) 16:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Altitude
Doesn't the altitude of a stable orbit depend on the mass of the object? It's true of satellites, but anything much more massy than that would not be stable.Gymnophoria (talk) 17:57, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

 * No. Everything in free fall, falls at the same rate.  That's what an orbit is.  The difference for massive objects is how much energy it takes to put them in a particular orbit.
 * --67.162.165.126 (talk) 03:02, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Mathematical symbols and equations error
Mathematical symbols and equations are not being properly displayed on the page. Anyone who can fix this please do so urgently. Ahmer Jamil Khan (talk) 14:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you be more specific? A quick look shows everything appears to be displaying properly to me. siafu (talk) 17:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

poor gif animation
someone who knows how needs to replace the radial lines with' dotted ones, and reduce it to one satellite. It had it confused with spokes of a wheel at first. --67.162.165.126 (talk) 02:58, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Cosine Rule
The cosine rule, as it is currently displayed, gives an estimation of the time needed for a signal to travel only from a ground station to a satellite but NOT back from the satellite to the station, as mentioned in the text. In order for the latter to be etsimated, I believe that the coefficient 1/c in the mathematical formula has to be changed to 2/c. I would recommend that an expert look into the matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Queen4thewin (talk • contribs) 22:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Question
In the illustration "Comparison satellite navigation orbits", the orbits of different satellites appear to be at varying altitudes. Are they thus not precisely geosynchronous? How much variation in altitude and latitude is permissible? Does this eat up extra propellant? Thanks!
 * -Kortoso (talk) 23:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Geostationary orbit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090327092830/http://www.itu.int/ITU-R/conferences/seminars/mexico-2001/docs/06-procedure-mechanism.doc to http://www.itu.int/ITU-R/conferences/seminars/mexico-2001/docs/06-procedure-mechanism.doc

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 03:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Radius
The radius of a geostationary orbit should appear explicitly in the Introduction. 94.30.84.71 (talk) 20:36, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * We have the altitude but not the orbital radius. At the distance that we are talking about, I can see how the radius might be more germane than the altitude. Kortoso (talk) 22:15, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

First gif does not appear at first glance to be geostationary
I'm no expert, but that first animation looks misleading to me. No matter how much I stare at it, I see the Earth rotating about the vertical axis, and therefore assume the satellite is oscillating above and below the equator.

For comparison, I think the red and yellow orbits shown here more clearly demonstrate the difference between a geosynchronous and geostationary orbit.

Assuming I am wrong, and the Earth *is* in fact tilted in that animation, there are two alternative ways it could be improved:

 * 1) Rotate it to remove the tilt, thus emphasising that a geosynchronous orbit sits on the flat plane of the equator.  (This would have the disadvantage of obscuring the fact that the Earth's is tilted relative to its orbit around the Sun.)
 * 2) or simply add a little line above and below the poles of the Earth, to clearly show the axis of rotation.  This will help to demonstrate that the Earth is tilted, and remove doubt from the viewer.

Is there a GIF expert who could work their magic to achieve the second suggestion? JoeyTwiddle (talk) 05:17, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

 * I have carefully studied the graphic, and found is correct about the vertical axis of rotation. I have therefore removed File:Geosynchronous orbit.gif from this article. Thanks for pointing this out. Burninthruthesky (talk) 15:55, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Technical flaw incorrect units
1) The units specified for the Gravitation Constant G should be kg-2 (exponent -2). The correct units are provided on the page specific to the Gravitation Constant. The same error is contained in the Geocentric Gravitation Constant page.

2) After fixing point 1, a further fix is needed to explain why the GGC does *not* have kg in it's units (which is correct). The reason for this is that the GGC is technically not just GMe. Rather it is GMe*(1kg). The 1kg is factored in presumably to simplify the calculation overall (since it would fall out in the end anyway). As I don't work in this area I don't know if there is already an appropriate term to describe this. It may be appropriate to describe this using the prefix "specific" as in "specific-GGC". This would be consistent with other uses of the prefix "specific" in the field of physics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.29.213.104 (talk) 19:07, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

 * Hi, thanks for your comment. The units for G in the article (m3 kg−1 s−2) correspond to the equation given in the text:
 * $$|\mathbf{g}| = \frac{G M}{r^2}$$

 * These units can be equated to N m2 kg-2 via Newton's second law, F=ma (units: N=kg m s-2). I hope this clarifies. Burninthruthesky (talk) 08:15, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Geostationary 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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:11, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Geostationary 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/20060626002953/http://www.golombek.com/sat/ to http://www.golombek.com/sat/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130904234835/http://science1.nasa.gov/realtime/jtrack/3d/JTrack3D.html/ to http://science1.nasa.gov/realtime/jtrack/3d/JTrack3D.html/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:59, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Comparison satellite navigation orbits.svg scheduled for POTD
Hello! This is to let editors know that the featured picture File:Comparison satellite navigation orbits.svg, which is used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for August 21, 2020. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2020-08-21. Any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be made before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:06, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Physics
Expression for orbital radius of geostationary satellite 37.111.141.143 (talk) 01:50, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Geostationary orbit


text:
Warren Winslow

Warren Winslow (January 1, 1810 – August 16, 1862) was an American politician, who served as 33rd Governor of the U.S. state of North Carolina from 1854 to 1855. Although first elected to the state senate in 1854, Winslow had a spectacular rise to Democratic Party leadership and became Speaker of the senate that year.

Winslow was serving as Speaker of the North Carolina Senate in 1854 when Governor David S. Reid resigned, having been elected to the Senate by the legislature. According to the amendments passed at the Convention of 1835, if a governor died or left office, the Speaker of the Senate was to assume the post (the lieutenant governor position was not created until the ratification of the Constitution of 1868). Winslow graduated from the University of North Carolina. After being elected to a vacant U.S. Senate seat and with almost one month left in his gubernatorial term, Governor David S. Reid handed the gubernatorial position to Winslow on December 6, 1854. Winslow served in this position until Thomas Bragg was inaugurated on January 1, 1855. He then served in the United States House of Representatives from March 1855 to March 1861.

Winslow was a slave owner.

Winslow was a native of Fayetteville, North Carolina, which is also where he died.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Warren Winslow


text:
David Settle Reid

David Settle Reid (April 19, 1813 – June 19, 1891) was the 32nd governor of the U.S. state of North Carolina from 1851 to 1854 and a U.S. Senator from December 1854 to March 1859. His uncle and eventual father-in-law was Congressman Thomas Settle.

He was born in what would later be Reidsville, North Carolina, an unincorporated town named for his father, Reuben Reid. He had a brother, Hugh Kearns Reid. At age 16, David Reid became the first postmaster for the town. He studied law and was admitted to the bar in 1833. From 1835 to 1842, Reid served in the North Carolina Senate. He was a U.S. Representative from 1843 to 1847. Reid ran for governor in 1848 as a long-shot candidate. In his campaign, Reid promoted the now-obscure cause of "free suffrage," i.e. that there should not be different standards for who could vote for members of the North Carolina House of Commons and of the North Carolina Senate. It was assumed that more voters would only increase the Whig domination of the state, but the Whigs denounced suffrage reform as "a system of communism unjust and Jacobinical." To everyone's surprise, Reid lost to Charles Manly by only 854 votes. In 1850, Reid defeated Manly by 2,853 votes, becoming the first elected Democratic governor of North Carolina. He was reelected Governor in 1852.

In the United States Senate, Reid was chairman of the Committee on Patents and the Patent Office. He sought but was denied a full term in the Senate when he lost a three-way internal party fight with Thomas Bragg and William W. Holden in 1858. He returned to the practice of law and was a delegate to the ill-fated 1861 Washington Peace Conference to try to prevent the American Civil War. Reid was a member of a state constitutional convention in 1875. In the early 1870s Reid moved from his farm on the Dan River to the nearby seat of Rockingham County Wentworth where he continued to practice law and was respected as an elder statesman of the Democratic Party.

In May 1881 Reid suffered a serious stroke at Wentworth and was soon moved to his elder son's Reidsville home where he died in June 1891 and was buried in nearby Greenview Cemetery. His widow and first cousin, Henrietta Settle Reid, died in 1913 and was buried by her husband. None of the few remaining descendants of David Settle Reid live today in his native Rockingham County.

title: David Settle Reid


text:
William Alexander Graham

William Alexander Graham (September 5, 1804 – August 11, 1875) was a United States senator from North Carolina from 1840 to 1843, a senator later in the Confederate States Senate from 1864 to 1865, the 30th governor of North Carolina from 1845 to 1849 and U.S. secretary of the Navy from 1850 to 1852, under President Millard Fillmore. He was the Whig Party nominee for vice-president in 1852 on a ticket with General Winfield Scott.

Early life and education
Graham was born at Vesuvius Furnace near Lincolnton, North Carolina, the son of Joseph and Isabella (Davidson) Graham. His Scots-Irish grandfather James Graham (1714–1763) was born in Drumbo, County Down, Northern Ireland and settled in Chester County in the Province of Pennsylvania.

Graham attended the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, where he studied law and was an active member of the Dialectic Society. He graduated in 1824, was admitted to the bar in 1825, and began practicing law in Hillsborough.

Political career
From 1833 to 1840, Graham was a member of the North Carolina House of Commons from Orange County. He served twice as speaker of that house.

In 1840, Graham was elected to the United States Senate as a Whig to fill the vacancy created by the resignation of Robert Strange. He served in the Senate from November 25, 1840, to March 3, 1843. In the Twenty-seventh Congress, he was chairman of the Senate Committee on Claims. His older brother, James Graham, had been representing North Carolina in the House since 1833.

From 1845 to 1849, Graham was Governor of North Carolina. Having declined appointments as ambassador to Spain and Russia in 1849, he was appointed Secretary of the Navy in the cabinet of President Millard Fillmore in 1850 and served until 1852. In the 1852 presidential election, he was the unsuccessful Whig nominee for vice president as Winfield Scott's running mate. The ticket only carried 42 electoral votes from the four states of Kentucky, Massachusetts, Tennessee, and Vermont.

Graham was a member of the North Carolina Senate from 1854 to 1866. In December 1860, James Alexander Hamilton of New York made an abortive appeal to the Pennsylvania presidential electors that they vote for Graham for president as a possible means of preserving the Republic.

Although Graham was a Unionist who opposed early secessionist efforts, he eventually voted for secession after Fort Sumter. Graham was a senator in the Confederate Senate from 1864 to 1865. In April 1865, with the Confederacy near defeat, Graham personally led a delegation that included another former governor, David Swain, to ask Union General William T. Sherman for a truce so that the state's capital, Raleigh, might be spared violence and destruction. Sherman agreed.

Later life
In 1866 Graham was once again elected to the United States Senate, but because North Carolina had not yet been readmitted to the Union, he could not present his credentials. From 1867 to 1875, he was a member of the board of trustees of the Peabody Fund, which provided educational assistance to the post-Civil War South. From 1873 to 1875, he was an arbitrator in the boundary line dispute between Virginia and Maryland. He died in Saratoga Springs, New York and is buried in the Old Town Cemetery in Hillsborough, adjacent to the Presbyterian Church.

Legacy
The United States Navy ship, USS Graham (DD-192), the World War II Liberty ship SS William A. Graham, and the city of Graham, North Carolina were all named for him, as was Graham County, North Carolina.

Montrose Gardens, located in Hillsborough, North Carolina, is one of Graham's former estates and still features some of the structures Graham and his family had built on the property. He lived in the Nash-Hooper House at Hillsborough from 1869 until 1875. The house was declared a National Historic Landmark in 1971.

One of Graham's sons, also named William A. Graham, became a state legislator and state agriculture commissioner. Two others, Augustus and John, also became politicians, while a daughter, Susan, married Walter Clark.

In 1842, John H. Hewitt dedicated a song, The Old Family Clock, to Mrs. W. A. Graham.

title: William Alexander Graham


text:
Bercy station (Paris Métro)

Bercy station is a station on lines 6 and 14 of the Paris Métro. It is located at the intersection of the Boulevard de Bercy and the Rue de Bercy in the neighbourhood of Bercy in the 12th arrondissement.

History
The station opened on 1 March 1909 with the opening of the original section of Line 6 from Place d'Italie to Nation (although part of Line 5—some dating back to 2 October 1900—was incorporated into Line 6 on 12 October 1942).

The Line 14 platforms opened on 15 October 1998 as part of the original section of the line from Madeleine to Bibliothèque François Mitterrand. It is named after the streets it is situated in and the neighbourhood of Bercy, which is mentioned in a document written in 1134. Over the centuries the lords of Bercy built a castle there which eventually covered a third of the commune of Bercy, which was absorbed into Paris in 1860. It was the location of the Barrière de Bercy, a gate built for the collection of taxation as part of the Wall of the Farmers-General; the gate was built between 1784 and 1788 and demolished in the 19th century.

From 1972 to 1974, during the pneumatisation of Line 6, the Gare de Paris Bercy, located south of the station, was used to carry out this work. West of Bercy station on Line 6 is the Pont de Bercy, which the line uses to cross the Seine towards the Rive Gauche.

On 16 July 2018, several name signs of the station are temporarily replaced to celebrate the victory of the France national football team at the 2018 FIFA World Cup, as in five other stations. Bercy was humorously renamed Bercy les Bleus (for "Merci les Bleus") as a thank you to the players of the French team.

Access
The station has several exits:
 * Access 1, "Bercy Arena": two stairs and an elevator Place du Bataillon-du-Pacifique;
 * Access 2, "Rue Corbineau": a staircase at 48, Boulevard de Bercy;
 * Access 3, "Gare de Bercy": a fixed staircase on the Rue de Bercy, odd side and two fixed stairs each lined with an escalator on the even side.

Platforms
The platforms of the two lines are of standard configuration. Two per stopping point, they are separated by the metro tracks located in the centre. A connection connects the two tunnels, between the track direction Mairie de Saint-Ouen of Line 14 and the track direction Étoile of Line 6.

Line 6 station has an elliptical vault. The decoration is of the style used for most Métro stations, bevelled white ceramic tiles cover the walls, vault and tympanums, while lighting is provided by two tube-canopies. The advertising frames are metallic; the name of the station is inscribed in Parisine font on enamelled plaques. The platforms are equipped with wooden slatted benches.

The architecture of the station of Line 14 follows the principles defined by Bernard Kohn for the whole of Line 14 since 1991, both in the choice of materials (light concrete ceilings, wood on the walls, floor tiles) and for lighting and ceiling height. The platforms are also wider than those of the other lines. The name of the station is written in Parisine font on backlit panels embedded in the walls and on stickers affixed to the platform facades.

Nearby

 * Accor Arena (formerly Palais Omnisports de Paris-Bercy or POPB), a major sports arena, is located to the south of Bercy station.
 * The Ministry of the Economy and Finance (Ministère de l'Économie et des Finances), also known simply as "Bercy", is located to the west of Bercy station.
 * The Gare de Bercy, serving medium-distance domestic services to Avallon via Laroche-Migennes, Sens and Auxerre.
 * The Parc de Bercy (north entrance), also served by Cour Saint-Émilion (south entrance).

title: Bercy station (Paris Métro)


text:
Kurt Biedenkopf

Kurt Hans Biedenkopf (28 January 1930 – 12 August 2021 ) was a German jurist, academic teacher and politician of the Christian-Democratic Union (CDU) party. He was rector of the Ruhr University Bochum.

Biedenkopf made a political career first in North Rhine-Westphalia, where he was chairman of the party. After the re-unification of Germany, he served as the first Minister President of the Free State of Saxony from 1990 until 2002. He was 54th president of the Bundesrat from 2000, overseeing the body's move from Bonn to Berlin. Biedenkopf is regarded as the intellectual leader of the CDU when Helmut Kohl was chancellor.

Biedenkopf worked on advisory boards of institutions including the Bertelsmann Stiftung, Deutsche Nationalstiftung, Dresden Frauenkirche, Independent Commission on Turkey and the Staatliche Porzellan-Manufaktur Meissen. Among his numerous recognitions were international honorific doctorates.

Early life and science
Biedenkopf was born in Ludwigshafen am Rhein. When his father became technical director of the Buna-Werke, the family moved to Schkopau, where he attended school. Biedenkopf first studied political sciences from 1949 to 1950 at the Davidson College in North Carolina and at Georgetown University. He then studied economics and law in Germany at the University of Munich, achieving a law doctorate in 1958. He obtained a Master in Law in 1962 from Georgetown University, where he studied and researched again from 1958 to 1959 and 1961 to 1962. In 1963 Biedenkopf completed his habilitation at Goethe University Frankfurt. He became lecturer of the Ruhr University Bochum in 1964. In 1967, he was appointed rector of the university; he was the youngest head of a university in West Germany at the time. He was lecturer and visiting professor also at the Goethe University Frankfurt and Leipzig University. In the early 1970s, Biedenkopf moved to the board of Henkel.

Career in national politics
Biedenkopf was a member of the Christian-Democratic Union (CDU). He entered his professional political career when he became secretary general of the CDU in 1973, under the leadership of chairman Helmut Kohl. He resigned from that office in 1977 after disagreements with Kohl and went on to become one of his fiercest rivals within the party.

From 1977 to 1983 he was deputy chairman of the CDU in Germany. During the terms 1976–1980 and 1987–1990 he was a member of the Bundestag.

In 1979, it was revealed that Christel Broszey, Biedenkopf's secretary, disappeared and was presumed to have fled to East Germany. Media reported that Broszey had been a spy.

Career in North Rhine-Westphalia
In the 1980, state elections in North Rhine-Westphalia, Biedenkopf unsuccessfully ran against the incumbent Minister-President Johannes Rau. He served as chairman of the CDU in North Rhine-Westphalia – the party's largest chapter – until 1987, when he was succeeded by Norbert Blüm. In late 1989, he joined forces with Lothar Späth, Heiner Geißler, Rita Süssmuth and others in an unsuccessful effort to oust Kohl as CDU chairman.

Minister-President of Saxony
After the re-unification of Germany in 1990 Biedenkopf was elected as Minister-President in the newly formed state of Saxony. His party also won the subsequent elections in 1994 and 1999 with an absolute majority. He held his office until April 2002.

At the CDU's initiative, the state parliament resolved to declare Saxony a "free state" once again, recalling its 19th century history. Early in his tenure, Biedenkopf emerged as a kind of unofficial spokesman for the regions of East Germany. He enjoyed great popularity among a majority of the people of Saxony. Known for his autocratic leadership style, he was often referred to as "the Saxon King" or "King Kurt". During his time in office, he doubled outlays on primary and secondary education and sharply ramped up spending on research and development. He also led a legal battle against the European Commission on subsidies for Volkswagen investments in Saxony.

Ahead of the German presidential election in 1994, Biedenkopf was widely seen as a likely candidate, but the post went to Roman Herzog.

In 2000, Biedenkopf held the rotating presidency of the Bundesrat of Germany. In this capacity, he oversaw the body's move to Berlin to complete the government's return to the pre-World War II capital from Bonn.

In January 2001, Biedenkopf dismissed State Minister of Finance Georg Milbradt because Milbradt had started a debate about Biedenkopf's succession. Milbradt eventually succeeded Biedenkopf in 2002.

Death
Biedenkopf died in Dresden on 12 August 2021 at the age of 91.

Political positions
Before the introduction of the euro, Biedenkopf was the only German state leader to vote against the monetary union in the Bundesrat, the legislative body that represents the German states; he later argued that "Europe wasn't ready for that epochal step." Already in 1997, he had joined the ministers-president of two other German states, Gerhard Schröder and Edmund Stoiber, in making the case for a five-year delay in Europe's currency union.

Ahead of the Christian Democrats' leadership election in 2018, Biedenkopf publicly endorsed Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer to succeed Angela Merkel as the party's chair. He later supported Armin Laschet's candidacy to succeed Kramp-Karrenbauer in the 2021 leadership election.

Other activities
In 1983, Biedenkopf became a member of the advisory board of the non-profit Bertelsmann Stiftung. In 1987, he became chairman of the board (until 1990). During his term, the Carl Bertelsmann Prize (today Reinhard Mohn Prize) was awarded for the first time. He was active on the board of the Deutsche Nationalstiftung, active for the unification of Germany after the separation and within the European community, and was the foundation's honorary senator until his death.

Between 2004 and 2006, Biedenkopf and Christine Bergmann served as ombuds, observing the impact of the Schröder government's labour market reforms, with a mandate to advise government and parliament on any recommended revisions to it. In 2005, he was appointed by Chancellor Gerhard Schröder to head a commission on the future of codetermination in Germany. Both Biedenkopf and Schröder later served as mediators in a 2006 conflict over privatisation plans at German railway operator Deutsche Bahn; the plans eventually fell through.

In addition, Biedenkopf held a number of paid and unpaid positions, including:
 * Dresden Frauenkirche, member of the board of trustees
 * International Law Institute (ILI), member of the international advisory board
 * Independent Commission on Turkey, member
 * Stifterverband für die Deutsche Wissenschaft, member of the board of trustees
 * Hertie School of Governance, chairman of the board of trustees (2003–2010)
 * Lions Club Germany Foundation, member
 * Staatliche Porzellan-Manufaktur Meissen, chairman of the supervisory board (1991–2015)

Recognition

 * 1974: Honorary doctorate, Davidson College, Davidson, US
 * 1978: Honorary doctorate, Georgetown University, Washington, US
 * 1991: Decoration of Honour for Services to the Republic of Austria
 * 1993: Honorary doctorate, New School for Social Research, New York, US
 * 1993: Hans Böckler Prize
 * 1994: Honorary doctorate, Catholic University of Brussels, Belgium
 * 1994: Royal Norwegian Order of Merit
 * 1997: Order of Merit of the Free State of Saxony
 * 2002: Constitutional Medal of Saxony
 * 2003: Brückepreis
 * 2008: Honorary doctorate, HHL Leipzig Graduate School of Management
 * 2011: Honorary citizen of Gröditz
 * 2017: Order of Merit of North Rhine-Westphalia
 * 2021: Honorary doctorate, University of Leipzig

title: Kurt Biedenkopf


text:
Obscuris vera involvens

The phrase Obscuris vera involvens means "Truth is enveloped by obscurity". It is from Virgil's Aeneid (VI, 100).

It is also found on an engraving on the title page of Francis Bacon's Wisdom of the Ancients (1641 French edition).

The phrase is inscribed on Athena's shield and explains the imagery there: the sun (truth) enveloped in clouds (obscurity), but shining through.

title: Obscuris vera involvens


text:
Edward Bishop Dudley

Edward Bishop Dudley (December 15, 1789 – October 30, 1855) was the 28th governor of the U.S. state of North Carolina from 1836 to 1841. He served in the United States House of Representatives as a Jacksonian from 1829 to 1831.

Early life
Born near Jacksonville, North Carolina, the son of Christopher Dudley, a wealthy farmer and businessman, and Margaret Snead. Dudley entered politics early in life. In 1811, at age twenty-one, he was elected to the lower house of the state legislature from Onslow County. He was reelected in 1812, and in 1814 he was elected to the North Carolina State Senate. During the War of 1812, between service in the legislature, he was second in command of a regiment from Onslow. The regiment was stationed at Wilmington, and he liked the area and moved there permanently after the war. In 1815 he married Eliza Haywood; they had six children. After Eliza's death he married the widow of General John Cowan.

Entry into politics
In 1816 Dudley won election to the lower house of the state legislature from the borough of Wilmington and won reelection in 1817. Dudley did not work with the "Old Republicans," North Carolina's dominant political faction, but instead actively joined a group of opportunists who formed a "People party" ticket, and in 1824 Dudley was an elector. The People party won and gave their vote to Andrew Jackson. In 1828, after the "Old Republicans" were also backing Jackson, Dudley was again a Jackson elector, and Jackson easily carried the state. Dudley's support of Jackson would soon end. Gabriel Holmes, the congressman from Dudley's district, died, and in 1829 Dudley won a special election to replace him. In his only term in Congress Dudley usually voted against Jackson's party, and he chose not to run for reelection.

In 1831 and 1832 Dudley was active in a group, headed by former Secretary of the Navy John Branch, that denounced Martin Van Buren, whom Dudley opposed more vehemently than he did Jackson, while professing to support Jackson. The group nominated Jackson for president and Philip P. Barbour for vice president. Dudley served as an elector, but the Jackson-Barbour ticket was badly beaten. Nevertheless, this coalition of Van Buren's enemies, which had at first received support from National Republicans, would reemerge in the 1830s as the Whig party, of which Dudley became a member.

In 1833 a bipartisan movement for statewide internal improvements formed, and Dudley was one of its most active leaders. A statewide meeting in Raleigh with Dudley its chairman demanded a state-supported railroad system. Dudley already was the leading investor in organizing the Wilmington and Raleigh Railroad, and in January 1834 he secured the first charter of the railroad from the state. He had personally invested $25,000, and $113,000 had been raised. In March 1836 the stockholders held their first meeting, and Dudley was elected the railroad's first president with a salary of $2,000 a year. The actual building of the railroad began in October 1836.

Governor
In 1835 North Carolina's old constitution was replaced by a new one. Dudley joined other eastern Carolina political leaders from both parties in agreeing to make limited concessions to the West, and the new constitution called for direct election of the governor. Dudley was unanimously nominated as his party's choice at a state convention. He accepted the nomination, declaring Van Buren "a Northern man in soul, in principle and in action" (Raleigh Register, 23 Feb. 1836). Southern sectionalism was a major Whig issue, and the party's support for distributing the proceeds of public land sales to the states, a measure Jackson had vetoed, greatly helped Dudley. He won the election, defeating the incumbent Governor, Richard Dobbs Spaight by about 4,000 votes. Dudley was the first North Carolina governor elected by popular vote.

In his first term Dudley and his party were not able to dominate the state. A Democratic victory in a special election gave the Democrats a majority of the legislature. Whig senator Willie P. Magnum was replaced by a Democrat, and in November 1836 North Carolina voters endorsed Van Buren. The state had received almost $1.5 million as its share of money from the federal government's "deposit" bill. The Whig plan, supported by Dudley, to use most of the money for railroads and the state bank was seriously amended by the Democrats, and the Democratic plan passed. This plan was the real beginning of a state internal improvements plan, but the Whigs took sole credit for the system, and Dudley was called the "father of internal improvements" in the state.

Dudley easily won reelection in 1838. A meeting of Wake County Democrats nominated Branch, who was in many ways the founder of the Whig party although he now called himself a Democrat. Many Democrats refused to recognize the nomination and stayed away from the polls. Dudley received 64 percent of the vote, the largest margin ever won by an antebellum candidate for governor. He urged more aid to internal improvement and to public schools, but owing primarily to East-West sectionalism, he accomplished relatively little.

In 1840 Dudley, although still popular, was barred by the state constitution from running for reelection. He had resigned his Wilmington and Raleigh Railroad presidency in 1837, but he was reelected as president of the railroad in 1841 and retained the position until 1847. The railroad, which never went to Raleigh, changed its name to the Wilmington and Weldon Railroad and at one time was the longest railroad in the world.

Later life
In 1847 Dudley retired from active leadership in the railroad. He remained a wealthy gentleman and an ardent Whig, and he entertained, among others, Secretary of State Daniel Webster and Senator Henry Clay. Dudley remained an important railroad developer and Whig leader, fitting the pattern of business interest in the party. He died at his home in Wilmington in 1855.

title: Edward Bishop Dudley


text:
Gare d'Austerlitz

Gare d'Austerlitz (English: Austerlitz station), officially Paris Austerlitz, is one of the seven large Paris railway terminal stations. The station is located on the left bank of the Seine in the southeastern part of the city, in the 13th arrondissement. It is the start of the Paris–Bordeaux railway; the line to Toulouse is connected to this line. In 1997, the Ministry of Culture designated the Gare d'Austerlitz a historical monument; it became the fifth large railway station in Paris to receive such a label, as currently only Montparnasse has not been attributed it.

Since the opening of the LGV Atlantique –ending at Gare Montparnasse –Austerlitz has lost most of its long-distance southwestern services. It is used by some 30 million passengers annually, about half the number passing through Montparnasse. The Elipsos Train Hotels (Trenhotel) operated jointly by Renfe and SNCF operated from here to Madrid and Barcelona from 2001 to 2013. They would leave in the early evening and arrive next morning. With the start of a direct TGV from Paris to Barcelona, on 15 December 2013, the Trenhotel services were discontinued.

1840 station
The Gare D'Austerlitz was the main station in Paris for the Paris-Orléans (PO) company and was originally called the Gare d'Orléans station. The station is near the Quai d'Austerlitz, and the bridge that gives it its name. These were named after the Czech town once known as Austerlitz (today Slavkov u Brna). Napoleon I defeated the Third Coalition there on 2 December 1805 at the Battle of Austerlitz.

Built from 1838, the first platform was built slightly back from the current location of the station by the architect Félix-Emmanuel Callet and began service on 20 September 1840, on the occasion of the opening of the Paris-Corbeil line, which was extended to Orléans in May 1843. Part of the rue Poliveau was cut by this construction, and another part, located near the Seine, took the name of rue Jouffroy.

The first expansion took place in 1846.

1867 station
Demolished, the station was rebuilt, from 1862 to 1869, by Pierre-Louis Renaud (1819–1897), chief architect of the Paris-Orléans company. It included a large hall made from iron, 51.25 m wide and 280 m long (the second largest in France after Bordeaux), designed by Ferdinand Mathieu and carried out by the construction workshops of Schneider & Co at Le Creusot and Chalon-sur-Saône. This vast space was also used as a workshop for making gas balloons, during the Siege of Paris in 1870. Also built was the departure pavilion to the north, the perpendicular building of the restaurant buffet, the arrival pavilion to the south, as well as the Paris-Orléans railway administration building at the west end of the hall, on Place Valhubert, with a Belle Époque style façade. The administrative building was an extension of the iron hall, whose pediment was invisible from Place Valhubert. This arrangement, as well as the choice of side entrances, was unusual for a terminal station.

Evolution since 1900
In 1900, the Paris-Orléans company extended its railway line towards the centre of the capital, with the Gare d'Orsay becoming the new head of line, when it entered service on 28 May on the occasion of the Exposition Universelle. The design was by architect Victor Laloux, and the construction by the contractor Léon Chagnaud. In 1906, the great hall of Gare d'Austerlitz was literally pierced through its width by the Metro 5 line by an extension of a viaduct crossing the Seine. An elevated station was located in the hall.

In 1910, during the great flood of the Seine, the station was flooded and rail traffic completely interrupted from 31 January to 9 February. During this period, the departure and arrival of the trains were terminated at Gare de Juvisy.

Since 1926, the Paris-Vierzon line was electrified to 1500 V, so no more steam engines entered Austerlitz. It was the first station in Paris to no longer receive a steam train.

In 1939, the Gare d'Orsay saw its function limited to suburban traffic, and the Gare d'Austerlitz once again became a terminus station for the main lines. In 1979, a 1 km extension to the Orsay line was built in a tunnel along the bank of the Seine, connecting the line to the Gare des Invalides, the terminus of the Rive Gauche line to Versailles. This new Transversal Rive Gauche line is today the central section of Line C of the Parisian commuter rail system, the Réseau Express Régional (RER).

On 28 February 1997, parts of the Gare d'Austerlitz were classified as monuments historiques, especially its facades and glass roof.

Future
A large refurbishment project of the Paris Austerlitz is currently under way. Four new platforms are being constructed and all the existing tracks are being refurbished. The interior will be rebuilt in order to handle LGV Sud-Est and LGV Atlantique services, partially transferred from the Gare de Lyon and Gare Montparnasse, both of which are at maximum capacity. All the work is planned to be completed by 2020, and will double the activity at the station.

Train services
The following services currently call at Paris-Austerlitz:
 * intercity services (Intercités) Paris–Orléans
 * intercity services (Intercités) Paris–Orléans–Blois–Tours
 * intercity services (Intercités) Paris–Orléans–Vierzon–Bourges
 * intercity services (Intercités) Paris–Vierzon–Limoges–Brive–Toulouse
 * night services (Intercités de Nuit) Paris–Toulouse–Latour-de-Carol
 * night services (Intercités de Nuit) Paris–Orléans–Cerbère/Albi
 * night services (Intercités de Nuit) Paris–Gap–Briançon

Gare d'Austerlitz also hosts stations on the Paris Métro (lines 5 and 10, see Gare d'Austerlitz (Paris Métro)) and RER.

title: Gare d'Austerlitz


text:
Octaeteris

In astronomy, an octaeteris (ὀκταετηρίς, plural: octaeterides) is the period of eight solar years after which the moon phase occurs on the same day of the year plus one or two days.

This period is also in a very good synchronicity with five Venusian visibility cycles (the Venusian synodic period) and thirteen Venusian revolutions around the Sun (Venusian sidereal period). This means, that if Venus is visible beside the Moon, after eight years the two will be again close together near the same date of the calendar.

 * {| class="wikitable"

! Astronomical period ! Number in an octaeteris ! Overall duration (Earth days)
 * + Comparison of differing parts of the octaeteris
 * Tropical year
 * align=right| 8
 * 2 921.93754
 * Synodic lunar month
 * align=right| 99
 * 2 923.528230
 * Sidereal lunar month
 * align=right| 107
 * 2 923.417787
 * Venusian synodic period
 * align=right| 5
 * 2 919.6
 * Venusian sidereal period
 * align=right| 13
 * 2 921.07595
 * }
 * Venusian sidereal period
 * align=right| 13
 * 2 921.07595
 * }
 * }

The octaeteris, also known as oktaeteris, was noted by Cleostratus in ancient Greece as a $2 923 1⁄2$ day cycle. The octaeteris is the calendar used for the Olympic games; if one Olympiad was 50 months long, the next would be 49 lunar months long. This octaeteris calendar is used for the Olympic dial of the Antikythera mechanism, to determine the time of the Olympic games and other Greek festivities.

The 8 year short lunisolar cycle was probably known to many ancient cultures. The mathematical proportions of the octaeteris cycles were The Three Kings panel also contains more accurate ratios, ratios related to other planets, and apparent astronomical symbolism.

title: Octaeteris


text:
Richard Dobbs Spaight Jr.

Richard Dobbs Spaight Jr. (1796 – November 17, 1850) was an American politician and planter who served as the 27th governor of North Carolina from 1835 to 1836. His father, Richard Dobbs Spaight, served as the eighth governor of North Carolina from 1792 to 1795.

Biography
Born in New Bern, North Carolina, Richard Dobbs Spaight Jr. was the son of Richard Dobbs Spaight. He was orphaned in 1802, when his father was killed in a duel; he later attended the University of North Carolina, graduating in 1815. Spaight studied law and was admitted to the bar in 1818; he was elected to the North Carolina House of Commons in 1819 and the North Carolina Senate in 1820, where he served until being elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1823.

Defeated for re-election to Congress, Spaight returned to the state legislature. He made repeated unsuccessful attempts to run for governor, defeated in 1827 (by James Iredell Jr.), 1828 (by John Owen), 1830, 1831 (by Montfort Stokes) and 1832 (by David Swain). Spaight was finally successful in 1835, becoming the last governor elected by the General Assembly under the North Carolina Constitution of 1776. As governor, he opposed state-funded internal improvements. Under the new North Carolina Constitution of 1835, Spaight ran in the first statewide popular election for governor, but was defeated by Edward B. Dudley. The Spaights were the first father and son to serve as governor. W. Kerr Scott and Robert W. Scott later achieved the same distinction. Spaight retired to his farm near New Bern.

title: Richard Dobbs Spaight Jr.


text:
Jeff Dee

Jeff Dee is an American artist and game designer. He was the youngest artist in the history of pioneering role-playing game company TSR when he began his work at the age of eighteen. He also designed the Villains and Vigilantes superhero game. He was a co-host on The Atheist Experience and Non-Prophets atheism advocacy podcasts.

Biography
In the late 1970s, while Dee was still a teenager, he and Jack Herman created Villains and Vigilantes, the first complete superhero role-playing game. The game was published by Fantasy Games Unlimited in 1979. Dee and Herman persuaded Scott Bizar to produce a second edition, which was published in 1982. Dee came up with the idea of creating a role-playing game based on cartoons when he, Greg Costikyan, and other designers were discussing which genres had no role-playing game systems yet; although they agreed that it would be impossible for such a game to be designed, a few years later Costikyan designed Toon as a full game with the assistance of Warren Spector.

Dee was the youngest artist in TSR history when he began working for them at the age of eighteen. In 1997, with his partner 'Manda, Dee founded UNIgames, a publisher of role-playing, board and computer games. Dee designed a new superhero role-playing game originally titled Advanced Villains and Vigilantes, which was ultimately published as Living Legends in 2005. In 2009, he co-founded Nemesis Games, developers of an MMO named Gargantua.

Dee has long been an advocate for the role-playing game industry.

Advocacy of atheism
In addition to his artistic and game-related work, Dee is an outspoken atheist and transhumanist. He has been the host of a bi-weekly Internet podcast called The Non-Prophets and a former host of a live, weekly, public-access television program, The Atheist Experience.

title: Jeff Dee


text:
Quai de la Rapée station

Quai de la Rapée is a station of the Paris Métro, serving Line 5, located in the 12th arrondissement of Paris.

Location
The station is located above ground between Pont Morland road bridge and the Voie Mazas, above the Saint-Martin canal, overhanging one of the locks leading to the Seine. The metro line connects to the Gare d'Austerlitz metro station by crossing the Seine via the Viaduc d'Austerlitz after the track winds to the right around the Institut médico-légal de Paris (morgue) on a viaduct called the Viaduc du quai de la Rapée. Since the closure of the nearby Arsenal station in 1939, the Quai de la Rapée station also serves the Bassin de l'Arsenal. Gare de Lyon is about 600 meters to the southeast.

History
The station was opened in 1906, under the name Station Contrescarpe, the former name of the Boulevard de la Bastille. On 13 July 1906, Line 5 from the Place d'Italie crossed the Seine via the Viaduc d'Austerlitz to the station and temporarily became its terminus. From 1 August, in order to facilitate connections, the metro returned to Gare de Lyon station using a preserved service road. This operation lasted until 17 December 1906, on which the line was extended to the Lancry (Jacques Bonsergent from 1946) station. From the station, the tracks plunge abruptly into tunnels at either end and it was submerged during the historic flood of 1910. The station is named after the Sieur de la Rapée, commissioner of war under Louis XV.

In 2018, the station had 1,273,466 passengers access it, which placed it at the 288th position out of 302 metro stations.

Access
The station has a single access from Place Mazas.

Bus connections
The station is served by line 72 of the RATP Bus Network, and at short distance by lines 24, 57, 61, 63 and 91 of the RATP bus network and, at night, by lines N01, N02 and N31 of the Noctilien network.

title: Quai de la Rapée station


text:
David L. Swain

David Lowry Swain (January 4, 1801 – August 27, 1868) was the 26th governor of the U.S. state of North Carolina, from 1832 to 1835.

Early life
He was born in Buncombe County, North Carolina; his father, George Swain, was a farmer and a member of the North Carolina General Assembly.

He received his early education at New Academy near Asheville and briefly attended the University of North Carolina, where he was a member of the Dialectic Society. Swain left his university studies in 1821 after only four months to study law with Chief Justice John Louis Taylor of the North Carolina Supreme Court; he was admitted to the bar in 1823.

Career
The citizens of Buncombe County chose Swain as their representative in the North Carolina General Assembly from 1824 to 1830; he was appointed to the state Superior Court as a judge, serving from 1830 to 1832.

Swain resigned as a judge to accept the vote of the North Carolina General Assembly to serve as governor; at the time he was the youngest governor in state history, and the first to belong to the Whig Party. As governor, Swain was a promoter of internal improvements, including railroads and education, although he received little support form the legislature. In 1835, he was a leading delegate to the state constitutional convention; his last act as governor was to issue the proclamation declaring the ratification of 1835's extensive amendments to the Constitution of North Carolina.

After serving the constitutional limit of three one-year terms, Swain was named president of the University of North Carolina in 1835; he held this post for 33 years and promoted the growth of the institution.

During the American Civil War, Swain was drawn back into North Carolina politics; he represented the state at an 1861 Confederate convention, but declined a position in the Confederate Senate in 1863. In 1865, Swain helped negotiate the surrender of Raleigh to the forces of General William Sherman, and, following the end of the war, advised U.S. president Andrew Johnson on Reconstruction policies.

Although Swain had attempted, facing serious challenges, to keep the University of North Carolina open during the course of the war, by 1868, the school was suffering financially, and, at the request of a new board of trustees appointed by the state legislature, he resigned. On August 11, 1868, he was thrown from a buggy pulled by a horse that General Sherman had given him. Though confined to bed due to shock and weakness, Swain appeared to be recovering, but he succumbed to his injuries on August 27. He was buried in the garden of his home in Chapel Hill, but was later reinterred in the Historic Oakwood Cemetery in Raleigh, N.C.

Legacy

 * Swain County, formed in 1871, was named in his honor

title: David L. Swain


text:
Napachanie

Napachanie is a village and sołectwo in the administrative district of Gmina Rokietnica, within Poznań County, Greater Poland Voivodeship, in west-central Poland. The village lies approximately 4 km south of Rokietnica and 16 km north-west of the regional capital Poznań. It has a junior high school (gimnazjum) and a palace from 1879, built in the style of Queen Anna's North-European Renaissance.

Napachanie was the birthplace of Antoni of Napachanie (1494–1561), professor and rector of the University of Kraków.

title: Napachanie


text:
Montfort Stokes

Montfort Stokes (March 12, 1762 – November 4, 1842) was an American Democratic (originally Democratic-Republican) politician who served as U.S. Senator from 1816 to 1823, and the 25th Governor of North Carolina from 1830 to 1832.

Biography
Born in Lunenburg County in the Colony of Virginia, Stokes was the youngest of the eleven children of David Stokes, a military officer and judge. At the age of 13, he enlisted in the United States Merchant Marine. During the American Revolutionary War, Stokes was captured by the British and confined for seven months on the British prison ship Jersey in New York Harbor. He later held the rank of major general in the state militia from 1804 to 1816.

After the Revolutionary War, Stokes settled in Salisbury, North Carolina, farmed, served as clerk of court, and studied law. There, he first met Andrew Jackson, a fellow lawyer. He served as assistant clerk in the North Carolina Senate from 1786 to 1790, and as clerk from 1799 to 1816, until he was elected to the United States Senate following the resignation of James Turner. He served the remaining few months of Turner's term and then a full term in the Senate, but was defeated for re-election by the legislature in 1823. He had previously been elected to the Senate in 1804, but had declined the seat. During his Senate term Stokes changed his residency from Salisbury to Wilkesboro, North Carolina, in the foothills of the Blue Ridge Mountains.

Stokes was then elected to the North Carolina General Assembly; he represented Wilkes County in the North Carolina Senate from 1826 to 1827 and the North Carolina House of Commons from 1829 to 1830.

In 1830, Stokes was elected Governor by the General Assembly on the ninth ballot, defeating Cadwallader Jones and Richard Dobbs Spaight Jr. Stokes faced Spaight for re-election again the following year and was elected by a narrow margin (98–93). During his term in office, Stokes supported construction of canals along the North Carolina Coast; he simultaneously served as president of the University of North Carolina Board of Trustees.

A strong supporter of President Andrew Jackson, Governor Stokes urged the state legislature to support Jackson's anti-nullification position; Stokes was named by Jackson to head the Federal Indian Commission, overseeing relocation and resettlement of Indian tribes from the American southeast, and resigned as governor on November 19, 1832.

With his new position, Stokes moved to Fort Gibson in the Arkansas Territory (now part of the state of Oklahoma) and advocated for the Cherokee, Seneca, Shawnee, and Quapaw tribes. He died in November 1842 and is buried near Fort Gibson. Stokes is believed to be the only soldier of the American Revolutionary War buried in Oklahoma.

In 1943, a United States Liberty ship named the SS Montfort Stokes was launched. She was scrapped in 1962.

Family
Stokes first married Mary Irwin and they had one daughter. After his wife died, he married Rachel Montgomery (1776–1862) and they had five sons and five daughters. His son, Montfort Sidney Stokes, fought as major in the Mexican–American War and died in 1862 in the Civil War as colonel of the 1st North Carolina Infantry Regiment.

title: Montfort Stokes


text:
Reuilly–Diderot station

Reuilly–Diderot is a station on lines 1 and 8 of the Paris Métro in the 12th arrondissement.

History
The station opened as Reuilly 13 August 1900, a month after trains began running on the initial section of line 1 between Porte de Vincennes and Porte Maillot on 19 July 1900. Until then, the trains passed through without stopping. It was then named after the nearby rue Reuilly as it once led to the Château de Reuilly, a now destroyed former palace located in the old town of Reuilly – now part of the 12th arrondissement.

On 5 May 1931, line 8's platforms opened as part of its extension from Richelieu–Drouot to Porte de Charenton. The station was subsequently renamed Reuilly–Diderot, its current name. "Diderot" referred to the nearby Boulevard Diderot, which in turn was renamed in 1879 after Denis Diderot (1713-1784), a prominent writer and philosopher during the Age of Enlightenment.

In the 1930s, the platforms of line 1 were extended to 105 metres to cater for 7-car trains, a plan which ultimately did not materialise. As part of the "Un métro + beau" programme by the RATP, the station's corridors and platform lighting were renovated and modernised on 31 March 2008. The platforms of line 1 were closed to raise its platform levels over the weekend of 31 May to 1 June 2008 as part of its automation. This was for the installation platform screen doors to improve passenger safety and for automation, which were done in March 2011. The line was fully automated in December 2012.

In 2019, the station was used by 6,328,040 passengers, making it the 52nd busiest of the Métro network out of 302 stations.

In 2020, the station was used by 3,860,750 passengers amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, making it the 30th busiest of the Métro network out of 304 stations.

In 2021, the station was used by 4,580,091 passengers, making it the 44th busiest of the Métro network out of 304 stations.

Access
The station has 4 accesses:

 * Access 1: Boulevard Diderot
 * Access 2: rue Claude Tillier
 * Access 3: rue de Reuilly
 * Access 4: rue de Chaligny

Platforms
Both lines have a standard configuration with 2 tracks surrounded by 2 side platforms, although line 1's platforms have had platform screen doors installed since March 2011. Line 8's platforms are curved and the increased height of its vault along with the lower portion of its side walls being vertical instead of elliptical distinguishes it from the other stations on the line.

Other connections
The station is also served by lines 46, 57, and 215 of the RATP bus network, and at night, by line N11 of the Noctilien bus network.

Nearby

 * Caserne de Reuilly
 * Jardin Martha-Desrumaux
 * Hôpital Saint-Antoine

title: Reuilly–Diderot station


text:
Muckle Roe

Muckle Roe is an island in Shetland, Scotland, in St. Magnus Bay, to the west of Mainland. It has a population of around 130 people, who mainly croft and live in the south east of the island.

'Muckle' is Scots for 'big' or 'great'.

History
The island is referred to in the Orkneyinga saga.

In 1905 a bridge was built between Muckle Roe and the Shetland Mainland over Roe Sound at a cost of £1,020 met from public subscription and a grant from the Congested Districts Board. The construction was of iron and concrete and its completion was followed by a reversal in the population decline seen in the 19th and earlier 20th centuries. The bridge was later widened and strengthened, and opened on 22 October 1947 by the Convener of Zetland, W. Thomson Esq. Construction of a replacement bridge commenced in May 1998, the work being completed in January 1999. It was opened officially by Councillor Drew Ratter on 3 April 1999.

Muckle Roe was part of the civil parish of Delting until the abolition of civil parishes in Scotland by the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1929.

Geography and geology
Muckle Roe is approximately 3 mi in diameter, with high cliffs in the south. Its highest point is Mid Ward 172 m. It is the seventh largest of the Shetland islands.

The island's rock is red granite, which gives the island its name – a combination of Scots and Old Norse meaning "big red island".

There are crofts in the east and south east. The rest of the island is lochan-studded moorland.

Notable residents
Gilbert Williamson Wood (2 September 1828 – 24 September 1886), a merchant seaman, was born at Little Ayre and emigrated to Adelaide, Australia in 1853. He founded G. Wood, Son & Co. along with his eldest son Peter in 1876. The company produced goods under a number of brand names, including Anchor, Snowflake, Viking, and Medallion. He donated sums of money back to Muckle Roe, including funds towards the building of the first bridge to mainland Shetland, and the Muckle Roe Church of Scotland, which was completed in 1911. The remaining funds were used to purchase books and school bags for every child attending the local school. Some profits from the sale of Anchor butter went towards paraffin lamps for the chapel.

title: Muckle Roe