Thank you...I’ll check it out then. Where do you suggest that I look...Wikipedia isn’t a trusted source for info, is it?
Even though diminished, the tug from gravity is still constant, even very high above the atmosphere.
Without some opposing force (centrifugal force) , The Space Station and all satellites would already have come crashing back down to Earth.
Same reason the Moon isn't locked into one spot in the sky. It must move round the Earth fast enough to keep from being pulled back into the Earth.
You can go ahead with Wikipedia, but make sure you look at their citation websites, so that you can have an idea whether the facts are authentic or not.
Wikipedia is generally excellent for starters-level scientific stuff.
Since others have already tackled the escape velocity aspect let me delve into Wiki. Wikipedia has had some negative press (from both sides of the aisle, usually following an entry that makes the Repub or Dem side a little 'unsettled'), and there are a FEW real issues (primary being that anyone can make a change to an entry). However, overall it is an extremely helpful resource, considering that at an entry-level (and in quite a good number of cases even moderate/medium level) it is very good. It would only be a problem if someone based 100% of what they know from Wiki, but as a starting point, reference point, bridging, etc etc etc it is a very good resource for those who, unlike me, did not sleep with encyclopedias (LOL). Now, as for the fact that anyone can change ...well, that is true and a weakness. However it is not as bad a weakness as some make it, since the same way you can say Reagan was a b!t$h I can come and change that entry into something veritable, and then report abuse meaning that future changes are not messed. A good example is the Wiki entry for FreeRepublic ....if Wiki was as messed as some claim it is, the page would be filled with nonsense. As it stands, it is quite accurate (even the parts about banning members, having lived through at least 3 seperate purges since I joined quite a number of years back). Sure, the odd DUmmie member can try and make a change, but such do not last long before someone changes it back.
Wiki is not a fool-proof site, but then again there is no fool proof site. Even my encyclopedias as a child could get things wrong ...or skewed. As for people being able to make changes ...that is a weakness, but it is also a solution to that weakness since someone will take out the dross statements.
As a starting point for research that is NOT too serious, or a bridging gap to fill in some vacuous spaces, Wikipedia is quite good. It is only a problem (and asinine) if you are basing all or most of your perspective on it, in much the same way that it would be ludicrous to base one's perspective solely on what one reads on FreeRepublic.