# [1.8.x] Snarkiverse v1.2: Rearrange the solar system for challenge & variety.

## Recommended Posts

I decided to give this mod a run, and it looks like a lot of fun. However, I'm a little concerned about the orbit of the Mun. Will I still be able to put up stationary satellites without them being pulled by the Mun sphere of influence? What would be the safe altitudes for constellations? I'd math it out, but my math skills are not quite good enough

##### Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Tivec said:

I decided to give this mod a run, and it looks like a lot of fun. However, I'm a little concerned about the orbit of the Mun. Will I still be able to put up stationary satellites without them being pulled by the Mun sphere of influence? What would be the safe altitudes for constellations? I'd math it out, but my math skills are not quite good enough

Geosynchronous and geostationary orbits are absolutely possible, since the Mun orbits Kerbin exactly once every two Kerbin days.  It's just that there are certain Kerbin longitudes where you can't park a synchronous satellite because the Mun will hit it as it sweeps past periapsis.  I've never bothered to work out exactly what range of longitude is the "forbidden zone", but you can see it pretty clearly if you just watch the Mun as it passes through periapsis.  As long as your satellite isn't too close to that, you should be fine.  In particular, the Mun sweeps across KSC's eastern sky at periapsis, so if you park a satellite in KSC's western sky, I expect you'll be okay.

As for other "safe" altitudes for satellites:  it's pretty simple arithmetic to work out the range of altitudes.  Take the Mun's periapsis altitude, subtract its SoI radius, and anything under that will be safe.  Similarly, if you add the Mun's SoI radius to its periapsis altitde, anything above that will be safe.

You can also pretty easily make a safe orbit that spans the Mun's periapsis altitude, if you make it eccentric.  Set it up so that your satellite is orbiting in a plane roughly perpendicular to the Mun's, and with the Pe and Ap located such that the satellite's orbit and the Mun's are like two oval links in a chain (i.e. the satellite's Ap is above the mun's Pe, and vice versa.

##### Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Snark said:

Geosynchronous and geostationary orbits are absolutely possible, since the Mun orbits Kerbin exactly once every two Kerbin days.  It's just that there are certain Kerbin longitudes where you can't park a synchronous satellite because the Mun will hit it as it sweeps past periapsis.  I've never bothered to work out exactly what range of longitude is the "forbidden zone", but you can see it pretty clearly if you just watch the Mun as it passes through periapsis.  As long as your satellite isn't too close to that, you should be fine.  In particular, the Mun sweeps across KSC's eastern sky at periapsis, so if you park a satellite in KSC's western sky, I expect you'll be okay.

As for other "safe" altitudes for satellites:  it's pretty simple arithmetic to work out the range of altitudes.  Take the Mun's periapsis altitude, subtract its SoI radius, and anything under that will be safe.  Similarly, if you add the Mun's SoI radius to its periapsis altitde, anything above that will be safe.

You can also pretty easily make a safe orbit that spans the Mun's periapsis altitude, if you make it eccentric.  Set it up so that your satellite is orbiting in a plane roughly perpendicular to the Mun's, and with the Pe and Ap located such that the satellite's orbit and the Mun's are like two oval links in a chain (i.e. the satellite's Ap is above the mun's Pe, and vice versa.

Thank you for the tips. I don’t have the game up and running but i suspect I have to figure out the altitude of the Mun as it passes through the equatorial plane of Kerbin. It should be doable. :)

##### Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tivec said:

Thank you for the tips. I don’t have the game up and running but i suspect I have to figure out the altitude of the Mun as it passes through the equatorial plane of Kerbin. It should be doable.

Place your sats when the Mun is there  if they’re safe then, they’re safe always. (In keosync anyway)

##### Share on other sites
• 3 months later...

This is awesome! I like that there is compatibility to KO now, however I find it weird that Keelon is at kerbin l3 point, as that is a very unstable place to put planets. They invariably get perturbed off that Lagrange point and then... things happen. *boom*

##### Share on other sites
11 hours ago, The Minmus Derp said:

This is awesome! I like that there is compatibility to KO now, however I find it weird that Keelon is at kerbin l3 point, as that is a very unstable place to put planets. They invariably get perturbed off that Lagrange point and then... things happen. *boom*

If you’re going to dissect KSP planets, there’s a lot more to see than just Lagrange points.

Just assume its an alternate physics reality where our rules need not apply and enjoy the view.

##### Share on other sites
On 11/26/2019 at 7:53 PM, The Minmus Derp said:

This is awesome! I like that there is compatibility to KO now, however I find it weird that Keelon is at kerbin l3 point, as that is a very unstable place to put planets. They invariably get perturbed off that Lagrange point and then... things happen. *boom*

Well, sure, but if you're gonna go there, let's talk about how you could never get Dres in that stable position relative to Kerbin, or how it would be essentially impossible for the Mun to be in an orbit like that (and never mind the fact that it's probably past the Roche limit, and what its tides would likely do to Kerbin even if it's not).  Or the impossibility of getting a planet spinning as fast as I've got Keelon doing, without disrupting its structural integrity.  And so on, and so forth.

And never mind the utterly implausible densities of KSP planets in the first place.

This mod isn't even slightly about "realism", and never has been.    It's about deliberately arranging things in a novel way to present some interesting navigational challenges and add variety to the game.

##### Share on other sites

The odds of this system not becoming completlly unstable with realistic gravitation (Principia) are basically 0 right? It looks really cool though!

##### Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, tonybalony said:

The odds of this system not becoming completlly unstable with realistic gravitation (Principia) are basically 0 right? It looks really cool though!

Well it might be fun to see what it would stabilize into..

##### Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Snark said:

Well, sure, but if you're gonna go there, let's talk about how you could never get Dres in that stable position relative to Kerbin, or how it would be essentially impossible for the Mun to be in an orbit like that (and never mind the fact that it's probably past the Roche limit, and what its tides would likely do to Kerbin even if it's not).  Or the impossibility of getting a planet spinning as fast as I've got Keelon doing, without disrupting its structural integrity.  And so on, and so forth.

And never mind the utterly implausible densities of KSP planets in the first place.

This mod isn't even slightly about "realism", and never has been.    It's about deliberately arranging things in a novel way to present some interesting navigational challenges and add variety to the game.

Ignoring the densities, The Mun is fine. I tested it in US2. An asteroid in our solar system spins once every ten minutes, which is probably faster than keelon. That could happen with a large impact or something, which isn't impossible. Also, Earth has 5 'quasi-satellites', like Dres and Kerbin. It is probably possible to just have one that's bigger.

##### Share on other sites

Sorry, mishap

Edited by Quoniam Kerman

1.9 isnt out yet

but it might

##### Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, The Minmus Derp said:

1.9 isnt out yet

but it might

(Though this mod is more concerned about *Kopernicus* than KSP itself.)

Oh! Oh boy!

##### Share on other sites
• 4 months later...

Looking forward to using this in 1.9... I miss huge Mun

##### Share on other sites
• 3 weeks later...
On 6/24/2020 at 2:04 AM, Clamp-o-Tron said:

Looking forward to using this in 1.9... I miss huge Mun

There's no reason why this mod itself shouldn't work on any future KSP versions.  The issue is with the Kopernicus dependency, especially since the folks who've been maintaining Kopernicus all these years decided to hang it up after the version for KSP 1.8.1.  It's done.

That said, there's nothing legally stopping anyone else from maintaining Kopernicus forks going forward, given that it has a fairly permissive license, and indeed some folks have done so.  It's just that now you'll need to decide for yourself how much risk you're willing to take on, based on how much time & effort the maintainers of the newer forks may be able to put into it.

##### Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Snark said:

There's no reason why this mod itself shouldn't work on any future KSP versions.  The issue is with the Kopernicus dependency, especially since the folks who've been maintaining Kopernicus all these years decided to hang it up after the version for KSP 1.8.1.  It's done.

That said, there's nothing legally stopping anyone else from maintaining Kopernicus forks going forward, given that it has a fairly permissive license, and indeed some folks have done so.  It's just that now you'll need to decide for yourself how much risk you're willing to take on, based on how much time & effort the maintainers of the newer forks may be able to put into it.

Umm... Kopernicus has been forked for 1.9 and is fairly stable.

##### Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Clamp-o-Tron said:

Umm... Kopernicus has been forked for 1.9 and is fairly stable.

Sure.  To the degree that you trust it, by all means go and play with that.

## Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

Only 75 emoji are allowed.