OhioBob

I just realized I didn't answer the second part of your question. The equation for orbital period is, P = 2 π (a³ / μ)1/2 where P = period (seconds), a = semimajor axis (meters), and μ = gravitational parameter (m³/s²). Rearranging to solve for semimajor axis from the period, we get a = ( μ (P / (2 π))² )1/3 For 1x Gael, μ = 3.530394E+12 m³/s². For other sized solar systems, multiply μ by the square of the resize factor. So for a 6.4x system, μ = 3.530394E+12 * 6.4² = 1.4460493824E+14 m³/s². For P use the sidereal rotation period of the planet. The sidereal periods for Gael are, 1x = 21549.4231430036 s 3.2x = 43086.9186985699 s 6.4x = 53875.0236462394 s 10x = 64656.0139109445 s Computing the geosynchronous semimajor axis for a 6.4x Gael, we have a = ( 1.4460493824E+14 * ( 53875.0236462394 / (2 π))² )1/3 = 21,988,694.48 meters. To express that as an altitude, we must subtract Gael's radius, Geosynchronous altitude = 21,988,694.48 - 600,000*6.4 = 18,148,694.48 meters.

That's by design, though it should be 14:57:55. The length of the solar day is 6 hours at 1x, 12 hours at 3.2x, 15 hours at 6.4x, and 18 hours at 10x. What you see in the Tracking Station is the sidereal period. At 6.4x the length of Gael's year is 431 days, so its sidereal day is, 15*431/432 = 14.965267 hours = 14:57:55. With the current GPP release, the game clock/calendar still uses 6-hour days and a 426-day year, which is hardcoded into KSP. Kopercinus includes a feature to change the clock/calendar to use the rotation and orbital periods of the home world for the lengths of the day and year, but this was bugged at the time of the last GPP release. Kopernicus release 3 fixes this. The next update of GPP will implement this feature so that the game clock/calendar is in sync with the periods of Gael.

I really don't like the way Thalia looks from the surface. Even though the planet has a low albedo, it should look much brighter than it does to the eye. Similar to the way the dark lunar surface appears relatively bright in Apollo photographs. There should be way more contrast between the surface and the black sky. I don't know if there is anything we can do about it, however. In regard to the carbon issue, I gave Thalia an albedo of 0.15, which is too high for a typical carbonaceous body. C-type asteroids usually have albedos of 0.3-0.1. However, the 0.15 albedo might be a bit to high based on its color (on reevaluation, I don't think I computed the albedos correctly). It might actually be ≤0.1. So although that's dark enough, the color is wrong. Thalia is mostly rust color. If it were carbon it would probably be shades of dark gray.

Rald? What the heck is Rald?

That's exactly what I do too. I consider it a simulation.

Yes, I've got access to the config you mentioned. Of course it is "unofficial". I think we'd like provide official support by packaging a config with either GPP or Kerbalism.

@ShotgunNinja, what's the procedure for getting Kerbalism support for Galileo's Planet Pack? I suppose we'll have to write our own config file? Is it best to package the config with GPP, or to have it added to Kerbalism?

You can't launch into Iota's plane, but your parking orbit will cross Iota's plane. If you time the launch correctly, you can make it so that your transfer burn occurs at the time you are passing through Iota's orbital plane, therefore eliminating the need for a plane change. I described how to do it here...

Perhaps that should be added to the Readme. In fact, I don't see anything in the Readme about the alternate Ciro.cfg. I remember there use to be a note about it, but it apparently got deleted. Probably should add an installation note saying that if either scatterer is not used, or Sigma Dimensions is used, the alternate Ciro.cfg should be installed.

Deleted. Already answered

Tips for getting to Iota. I compute that the proper phase angle for a trip to Iota is 115 degrees. That is, you preform your transfer orbit injection burn when the angle between the line segment joining Kerbin and Iota, and the line segment joining Kerbin and the spacecraft, is 115 degrees. To avoid having to perform a plane change, you should launch from Gael when KSC is 90 degrees from the injection point, or when the phase angle between Iota and KSC is 205 degrees. Doing so means that the descending node of the parking orbit will coincide with the injection point. That is, you’ll be passing through Iota’s orbital plane just at the time that you perform the transfer burn. This will enable you to obtain a good intercept with Iota without having to perform any plane change. Tips for getting to Ceti. A due east launch from KSC will inject your spacecraft into an orbit with an inclination of about 8.64 degrees. Ceti’s orbital inclination is 9 degrees. Therefore, with proper timing you can launch due east from KSC and match Ceti’s orbital plane to within 1/2 degree. The proper time to launch is when KSC is 90 degrees from Ceti’s descending node. You can eyeball this from the map view, but better results can be attained by using Kerbal Engineer Redux. Set KER’s orbital display to show longitude of ascending node. Send your rocket to the launch pad a time warp ahead until the LAN readout starts to approach 90 degrees. When the display shows 90o, the orbital nodes are correctly aligned. However, I’ve found that best results are achieved by launching when the display reads about 89 degrees. Doing this will allow you to reach Ceti with only minimal plane change.

What sized version are you playing? Those numbers are way too high for a 1x version (but more is always better than not enough). If you time the launch correctly so that you minimize the plane change, I think you can get to Iota and back for about 5.5 km/s, and Ceti and back for about 6 km/s. To play it safe, I'd probably bump those numbers another 0.5 km/s, or maybe even 1 km/s if you are an inexperienced player. If you are playing any of the upsized versions, then multiply by the square root of the scale factor. For instance, if you are playing a 3.2x game, multiply the delta-v by a factor of SQRT(3.2) = 1.8.

The easiest planet to get to in terms of delta-v and travel time is Niven. I would say that the next easiest for a manned mission would probably be Gratian, though the travel time is pretty long. Tellumo is closer, but its high gravity and dense atmosphere makes it a real challenge. Thalia has some really intense heating issues that takes special planning to overcome - might not be a good first choice. Niven is GPP's closest match to Duna in terms of what it takes to go there, land, and return.

The only difference between the regular config and the alternate one is a single setting that changes the color of the sun flare. I can see no reason why one would work and the other doesn't. Are you sure you placed the alternate config in the right place? It should go in GameDate/GPP/Ciro/ and should replace the existing Ciro.cfg.

KSP provides some pretty good tools for modeling atmospheres. If one knows how real atmospheres behave and understands how to use the available tools, very lifelike atmospheres can be produced. The atmospheres in GPP are about as lifelike as they can be made. Trying to turn GPP into a system with a hot Jupiter would totally disrupt everything we've done for the last few months. Atmospheres, environments, and even textures have been customized to fit the system as it now exists. If we want a system with a hot Jupiter, the better option is to start from scratch and design an entirely new system with that specifically in mind. I've actually considered doing that myself, but if I do, it's still a far way off.

Yes, look in Optional Mods/Extra Visual Mods/GameData/.

First, the atmospheres of the gas giants in GPP weren't made to be any more or any less deadly than Jool. In fact, they weren't made with Jool in mind at all. The atmospheres were developed completely from scratch based on the physical characteristics of each individual planet and using the ideal gas law. Second, it's not surprising your airship sank. Nero's atmosphere is predominately hydrogen, so there is no way an airship can attain the buoyancy needed to say aloft. Your airship may be "lighter than air" on Gael and Tellumo, but not so on Nero. Hydrogen is the lightest gas, so there's nothing you can put in your airship that will make it float in an atmosphere of hydrogen.

Science values for Gael and Iota are the same as Kerbin and Mun. Ceti has a tiny boast over Minmus for the "In Space High" condition, but is otherwise the same. Other bodies should have values comparable to, but not necessarily the same as the stock game. GPP has completely different bodies than stock, so don't expect to have the same science return. Here ae the celestial body multipliers: Body Landed Splashed Flying In Space Recovery Low High Low High Ciro 16 16 16 2 4 Icarus 18 10 9 9 Thalia 10 8 7 7 Eta 11 9 8 8 Niven 8 6 6 6 5 5 Gael 0.3 0.4 0.7 0.9 1 1.5 1 Iota 4 3 2 2 Ceti 5 4 3 3 Tellumo 9 9 7 7 7 6 6 Lili 10 8 7 7 Gratian 11 9 9 9 8 8 Geminus 12 10 9 9 Otho 13 12 11 10 10 Augustus 14 12 12 12 11 11 Hephaestus 14 12 11 11 Jannah 14 12 11 11 Gauss 14 13 12 11 11 Loki 15 13 12 12 Catullus 15 13 13 13 12 12 Tarsiss 15 15 13 13 13 12 12 Nero 15 14 13 12 12 Hadrian 16 16 14 14 14 13 13 Narisse 16 14 13 13 Muse 16 14 13 13 Minona 16 14 13 13 Hox 16 14 14 14 13 13 Argo 17 15 14 14 Leto 17 15 14 14 The thing that is going to make GPP more difficult than stock is that Iota and Ceti have far fewer biomes than Mun and Minmus. Therefore there is less total science to reap from those bodies.

I currently have no plans to do that. First off, the Rhino is really no improvement over the Mainsail. A modded version of the Rhino would have nearly the same Isp curve as the Mainsail, would produce only about 20% more thrust, but weigh 50% more. I think you're better off using the Mainsail. Although a modded version of the Mammoth could provide very good performance on Eve, it's already one of the best of the stock engines. I'm also trying to stay within the narrative of the game and limit the manufacturers that have gotten into the Eve engine business. I've already got Jeb's Junkyard & Spacecraft Parts and Rockomax in the business. I think it's too small of a niche market for a third manufacture, Kerbodyne, to jump in - they could probably never recoup their investment. You'll just have to use clusters of Mainsails.

@narhiril, I was never able to get the ring problem fixed and gave up on it. We ended up just setting the ring inclination to zero. I'm sorry to hear you're having problems as well. I was planning to try experimenting with it again, but in light of your reported problem, it doesn't sound like there's much point to it. I would really like to see a solution to this issue. Ideally, I'd like to be able to specify a ring ascending node in the ring config.

^^ I was just going to say this. You don't just want bigger parts, but you want parts that are more mass efficient. In stock, fuel tanks are 8 parts propellant mass for every 1 part dry mass. That's a very poor ratio in real life. It works for a 1/10th size universe, but wouldn't get you very far when you up the scale to 10x. I real life we can easily get ratios of 20:1 or even better. I haven't used SMURFF, but it's designed to modify parts to provide better mass ratios. I typically don't play scaled up games, but I would guess you can probably manage to play with stock parts in a 3.2x system, though it will definitely be more difficult. I wouldn't recommend a 6.4x or 10x game without modding your parts.

Yes, it works for transfers as well. Just multiple the values in the delta-v map by the appropriate factor and you should be real close.

Yes, there are some changes in the upgrade that could cause some problems. First, the has been a change in the physics that alters the orbital periods of celestial bodies. That could throw off any intercepts you might have for spacecraft that are in transit between celestial bodies. You may want to let all your spacecraft reach their final destinations before upgrading. Either that, or be ready for the possibly that you might have to make some course corrections. Several celestial bodies have had their textures changed, so that could put in jeopardy any spacecraft or bases landed on their surfaces. Some will be okay but others will not, there are no guarantees. The atmosphere of Niven has changing slightly, increasing in max altitude from 60 to 65 km. So if you have something orbiting in that 60-65 km range, you'll need to move it or lose it.

SOI is measured from the center of mass of the body, while orbit altitudes are measured from the surface. To be inside of Lili's SOI, you have to be within about 10,000 m of its surface. Lili is so small and close to Tellumo that you really shouldn't be able to orbit it at all. Lili's computed SOI is actually smaller than its own radius. It's been forced out to 17,000 m just to make orbits possible.