Satellites do not defy gravity they are actually falling all the time. They follow a curving path, however, and when that path matches the curve of the Earth, they are in orbit.
Interestingly enough the sattelites are doing their level best at falling from the sky. The whole idea is that at orbital velocity the objects move forward fast enough that they continously miss the Earth as they fall down. In the ideal case satellites are in orbit. This means that they circle the Earth at a specific speed and a specific height. Because satellites aren't in Earth's atmosphere nothing slows them down. If they did slow down it would reduce the height they orbit at. If the height were reduced they would encounter thicker air which would slow them down more, which would lower their height more. This cycle would continue until they crashed. In actuality the satellites do slow down very slowly because the air is not totally absent. Eventually all satellites will fall from the sky.
satellites that spy typically in a low earth orbit with a big telescope looking down at the ground, like google satellite on steroids
Air resistance. if in air they would slow down and fall.
In a sense they are continually falling to Earth, but they are so far away that the curve of their fall is big enough to follow the circumference of the Earth.
1-Apples falling down. 2-Gravity keeps satellites in their orbits around the earth.
Gravity pulls the satellites but the orbiting satellites don't fall down towards earth because the speed with which they move balances the gravitational force i.e. Centripetal force = Gravitational force.
Satellites themselves are not dangerous. They are placed in orbit around Earth to provide various services like communication, weather monitoring, and navigation. However, if a satellite were to malfunction or collide with another object in space, it could potentially create debris that poses a hazard to other satellites and spacecraft.
Satellites need to be out of the earth's atmosphere or the gravity would make them fall to the ground. In space, the satellites are also able to orbit the earth effortlessly because they have less weight.
Some experts argue that there should be a limit on the number of satellites to prevent overcrowding and the creation of orbital debris that hinders future space activities. Others believe that strict guidelines and regulations on satellite launches are sufficient to manage the space environment without a specific limit on the number of satellites.
not in a large scale because we have satellites to explore continents but in a small scale yes some parts of earth have not been mapped down to specifics
There are hundreds of thousands pieces of man-made material currently in orbit. A few thousand of them are actual useful satellites, things that we want to have up there; stuff like GPS satellites, communications satellites, weather observation stations, the International Space Station, and of course, DirecTV satellites. Most of them are "space junk"; satellites that have failed, or broken, or out of fuel. Old booster rocket engines. Collision debris, from when the Chinese shot down a satellite and smashed it into 100,000 pieces of litter in orbit, or when one of the Iridium satellites crashed into a Russian reconnaissance bird.
Well it comes down to central force. The closer you are to the eath the more velocity (left and right) you need to keep the satellite in orbit to overcome the force of the earth pulling it down, so it become inpratical in terms of energy needed. Too far away from the eath and gravitational force of the earth might be too weak to keep the satellite from flying of into space. However you can get Low earth orbit satellites http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_Earth_orbit