Reasons for Deep Space Stations?

[Wcmille]

13 hours ago, GoSlash27 said:

 I dunno. I was watching a Twitch stream earlier where they had a 2 orbit rendezvous get screwed by a solar occlusion. I always do simple Hohmann transfers, so that sort of thing should never be a problem for me... but I've never played with comm networks before.
 Guaranteed, tho'... if you do Hohmann transfers both ways, you will experience a solar occlusion in the middle of your stay at the destination planet. There's probably nothing important going on when it hits, but it will happen.

Best,
-Slashy

Does it mostly solve by putting 2 communication satellites in orbit around the Sun, with same orbit as Kerbin, at +120 degree and -120 degree phase (some station keeping required)

[GoSlash27]

Wcmille,

I don't know for sure, as I haven't played with it, but *in theory* a single relay just a few degrees away from Kerbin would make a solar occlusion impossible. Of course, once a "month" you'd still get a lunar occlusion to the relay. The chances of that happening simultaneously with a solar occlusion *and* a critical event is so unlikely that I wouldn't worry about it.

Even better, if I put a single relay into nearly opposition of Kerbin, it would do the same thing and extend my range.

Best,
-Slashy

 

[Alshain]

30 minutes ago, Wcmille said:

Does it mostly solve by putting 2 communication satellites in orbit around the Sun, with same orbit as Kerbin, at +120 degree and -120 degree phase (some station keeping required)

Yes, it should, but not the same orbit, the same orbital period (i.e. the speed at which they orbit the sun).  Orbit is irrelevant as it is possible to have a different orbit with the same orbital period.  However, as I said, it's really difficult to keep them in sync with the planet in my experience.  It shouldn't be, but for some reason it is.

Edited September 11, 2016 by Alshain

[Andem]

Catching asteroids with the Custom Asteroids mod.

[Alshain]

2 hours ago, Green Baron said:

 

That would mean that the orbital heights of moons and their soi will be taboo for comm's satellites. Or the comm's / relay satellites best be set in high polar orbits around the moons. For the least shadow lobe by the moon and the planet ...

?

 

Sorry, I missed this.  What it means is the theoretical 'Lagrange' points aren't very good for satellites. 

If your satellite is directly orbiting the Mun it will be fine, however in orbit you will need at least 3 satellites to get a guaranteed equatorial signal (more for polar orbits).  However, it is theoretically possible to place a much more cost effective network with only 2 satellites, instead of being inside the moons SOI, it would be just outside it in front and in back of it and orbiting the planet at the same speed as the moon.  Therefore maintaining relative position.  This would get you almost complete coverage, though there may be a blind spot on the surface, everything in orbit should see it.

The problem is lagrange points don't actually exist in KSP. If they did, the gravity pull from the planet and moon would keep your satellite in place, not it's orbit.  In fact the satellite would sort of orbit around the Lagrange point itself.  In this case we are simulating one by having the satellite orbit identical to the moon only slightly ahead and behind, and that is very hard to do even with an orbital period readout from KER it is nearly impossible.  In the end,  either or both of your satellites will catch or be caught by the moon's SOI and collide, capture, or be ejected.

For that reason, I don't recommend this method.  The solar network would be similar but instead of a moon orbiting a planet it is a planet orbiting the sun, as you see in the image above.  However, instead I would recommend if you need a solar network you should just use 3 relay satellites around the sun with the same orbital period.  In that case the drift would be so small it would be nearly irrelevant.

Edited September 11, 2016 by Alshain

[Wcmille]

1 hour ago, Alshain said:

Yes, it should, but not the same orbit, the same orbital period (i.e. the speed at which they orbit the sun).  Orbit is irrelevant as it is possible to have a different orbit with the same orbital period.  However, as I said, it's really difficult to keep them in sync with the planet in my experience.  It shouldn't be, but for some reason it is.

I had +120 and -120 degrees in mind. Is +90/-90 better?

Is the orbital period of Kerbin long enough that station keeping won't be tedious? I have tried putting satellites just outside of the SOI of the Mun, slightly before and slightly after (perhaps that is what you described. I quickly realized the station-keeping wasn't worth it, but I felt like factors were their proximity to an SOI and the orbital period of Mun.

[Alshain]

5 minutes ago, Wcmille said:

I had +120 and -120 degrees in mind. Is +90/-90 better?

Is the orbital period of Kerbin long enough that station keeping won't be tedious? I have tried putting satellites just outside of the SOI of the Mun, slightly before and slightly after (perhaps that is what you described. I quickly realized the station-keeping wasn't worth it, but I felt like factors were their proximity to an SOI and the orbital period of Mun.

Well, that's really an opinion.  Personally I find stationkeeping anything in solar orbit to be tedious.

It takes a year to make an adjustment!

Edited September 11, 2016 by Alshain

[Tex_NL]

4 minutes ago, Alshain said:

Well, that's really an opinion.  Personally I find stationkeeping anything in solar orbit to be tedious.

Indeed. Two satellites at 'simulated' Lagrange points are tedious and won't cover the entire Mun. Two strategically high orbiting satellites around the Mun won't cover it either but are a lot easier and more stable.

Edited September 11, 2016 by Tex_NL

[Alshain]

1 minute ago, Tex_NL said:

Indeed. Two satellites at 'simulated' Lagrange points are tedious and won't cover the entire Mun. Two strategically high orbiting satellites around the Mun won't cover it either but are a lot easier and more stable.

3 will cover it though, however it will take 6 to eliminate all blindspots.

[Diche Bach]

Wouldn't two Kerbol satellites (with nearly equal orbital periods and spaced equidistant around the orbit) in polar orbits pretty much cover all bases? If one of them is behind the sun, the other one is on this side of it.

Unless a tranmission nodes is just plain occluded by something near it (which might be occluding local networking too for that matter), and assuming receiver/transmitter power to reach the whole system, this would seem like the ideal "central comms hub." If two polars isn't enough then maybe four is?

[Wcmille]

4 hours ago, Diche Bach said:

Wouldn't two Kerbol satellites (with nearly equal orbital periods and spaced equidistant around the orbit) in polar orbits pretty much cover all bases? If one of them is behind the sun, the other one is on this side of it.

Unless a tranmission nodes is just plain occluded by something near it (which might be occluding local networking too for that matter), and assuming receiver/transmitter power to reach the whole system, this would seem like the ideal "central comms hub." If two polars isn't enough then maybe four is?

dV (or time to establish) might be a concern. Certainly cheaper to put them coplanar with Kerbin.

[Diche Bach]

11 minutes ago, Wcmille said:

dV (or time to establish) might be a concern. Certainly cheaper to put them coplanar with Kerbin.

True. Probably pretty hefty dV cost just for the inclination change. Course, gravity assists off of Minmus with a slight angle seem pretty awesome for spinning a ships off at cockamammy angle. Not sure why, but . . . if that is predictable (which surely it is if you understand that stuff) then presumably you can get to a fairly inclined angle relative to the plane of the ecliptic for pretty cheap.

Now that I think about it, I do believe it would require four to be "fairly tight" in terms of resistance to occlusion. With only two at equidistance, there would be a significant chunk of time when both sats were fairly near the plane of ecliptic and no less vulnerable to occlusion that coplanar sats really. But with four, you'd effectively always have one above and one below the zone where they could be occluded.

In order to be really effective, this would need to be between Moho and Kerbol and the ranges on the transceivers enough to extend all the way across the whole system.

But with all of those factors considered, this would seem to be a legit purpose for solar orbiting satellites/stations, even in unmodded KSP (well, at least once 1.2 is out).

Add mods like Solar Science, KSP-Interstellar, etc., and other good reasons emerge (apart from the aforementioned: to complete contracts or 'because it is cool'). Solar Science gives science missions that require Kerbol orbit. There do not seem to be too many of them but a few anyway. KSP-I I think has more advanced solar power capture and also power transmission. So you could conceivably combine your 4 solar polar comms sats with solar power capture and transmission and have some pretty important pieces to a solar comms and power network.

Plus the aforementioned sentinel missions . . .

ADDIT: one little comment: isn't "anywhere" within Kerbol's heliosphere not really "Deep Space?" I'm not sure what you'd call it . . . something orbiting the sun and not one of the other celestial bodies, but I don't think it qualifies as Deep Space does it?

Edited September 12, 2016 by Diche Bach

[Caelib]

Deep space rendezvous are very difficult and expensive in terms of energy so I don't ever fumble with them anymore.

[suicidejunkie]

If you put a long range base on each of Kerbin's poles, they will provide constant LoS to everywhere except LKO and Mun, and never need adjustment.

They will also never be occluded by Mun, since they can't actually see it from only 30m above sea level.  All you have to worry about is the sun and other planets.

[Alshain]

5 hours ago, Diche Bach said:

Wouldn't two Kerbol satellites (with nearly equal orbital periods and spaced equidistant around the orbit) in polar orbits pretty much cover all bases? If one of them is behind the sun, the other one is on this side of it.

Unless a tranmission nodes is just plain occluded by something near it (which might be occluding local networking too for that matter), and assuming receiver/transmitter power to reach the whole system, this would seem like the ideal "central comms hub." If two polars isn't enough then maybe four is?

You could actually cover most area with only one at 90 degrees from Kerbin in either direction... if you can keep it there.

This is a crude drawing but it should get the point across.

Edited September 12, 2016 by Alshain

[GoSlash27]

22 minutes ago, Alshain said:

You could actually cover most area with only one at 90 degrees from Kerbin in either direction... if you can keep it there.

This is a crude drawing but it should get the point across.

Alshain,

 You could greatly minimize the blind spot with a single sat just under 180° from Kerbin (just far enough away from 180° to avoid solar occlusion of the relay) and extend the relay path to the other side of the system.

Best,
-Slashy

[Alshain]

22 minutes ago, GoSlash27 said:

Alshain,

 You could greatly minimize the blind spot with a single sat just under 180° from Kerbin (just far enough away from 180° to avoid solar occlusion of the relay) and extend the relay path to the other side of the system.

Best,
-Slashy

Yes you can as long as you remember that you will be flirting with the loss of communications to your relay.  The problem is it may not gain you much and you run the risk of drift ruining your day.  Of course with the new stock system it isn't near as big a deal as it is with RemoteTech.  Still, I think if I really needed that area covered, I'd prefer a second satellite.

Edited September 12, 2016 by Alshain

[Sharpy]

On 10.09.2016 at 1:10 AM, Wcmille said:

i can think of two reasons:

1. A refueling station in low orbit around the sun, to allow Kerbs to "visit" that location.

2. A cycler.

Are there others?

3. A mistake.

My Sentinel telescope was a space station with a laboratory. The laboratory quickly ran out of science to collect, and the two scientists sat there stranded forever, since I had no intention to remove the telescope from its orbit, and couldn't be assed to send a shuttle to pick them up from that inconvenient orbit.

[Curveball Anders]

5 minutes ago, Sharpy said:

3. A mistake.

No no, there are no mistakes in KSP.

The correct term is "experience gathering experiment".

[Diche Bach]

9 hours ago, suicidejunkie said:

If you put a long range base on each of Kerbin's poles, they will provide constant LoS to everywhere except LKO and Mun, and never need adjustment.

They will also never be occluded by Mun, since they can't actually see it from only 30m above sea level.  All you have to worry about is the sun and other planets.

Cool. However, can you DO that in vanilla!? I was under the impression building additional planetside bases was strictly from mods, no?

[Tex_NL]

5 minutes ago, Diche Bach said:

Cool. However, can you DO that in vanilla!? I was under the impression building additional planetside bases was strictly from mods, no?

You'll probably need a few additional com sats to relay the signal to the existing stations. But I can't see why polar ground stations would not be able to relay a signal to deep space.

On the other hand. If you need com sats to relay the signal why bother with the polar ground stations in the first place.

[suicidejunkie]

3 hours ago, Diche Bach said:

Cool. However, can you DO that in vanilla!? I was under the impression building additional planetside bases was strictly from mods, no?

Use a plane, boat or suborbital rocket to deliver a lander/mobile base to the pole.  Include on the base a vertically oriented tracking solar panel since you get 24 hour sunlight there, and all the big dish antennas you can fit.

 

To get a connection to the pole, you can do inclined satellites, or just build out a series of cheap omni relays on mountaintops.

I use air-droppable octos, and punt them out the back of a mk3 cargo bay while flying low over the peaks (Higher altitude = longer surface range):

 

[Diche Bach]

@suicidejunkie brilliant! I'll have to play with that since I've mastered the simple synchronized 4 sat orbital comms network with RemoteTech!