Well, that's even worse! I have to repeatedly take the difference of the true anomalies, switching back and forth between target planets, and then add to that the angle of periapsis, and then watch that number change and hope I don't miss it while I'm computing. I guess the better way would be to compute the next instance of it occurring, compute the true anomaly of the current or the target, and then launch from there. Hey, thank you, Mr Shifty, for the doc. That is supremely helpful, especially if I'm going to plan trips at arbitrary times. I will keep this in mind. By the way, if the eccentricity is 0, and there is no periapsis, how does Kerbin even _have_ a true anomaly? Is it set to the angle of displacement from the KSP universal vector frame of background reference, assuming they use one for their computations? And does anyone have other suggestions? I don't like the clutter of MechJeb, since I want to have a hand in my own orbit-planning; there's always a tool to do some planning for you, but I can always answer whatever bizarre question I have as long as I