Satellite positioning around minmus

[MR L A]

Hi guys,

I've read a few posts regarding this subject, however I've failed to understand them. First. I'll explain what I am trying to do and why.

I am using antenna range in lieu of the 1.2 KSP update which is alleged to add something similar. I currently have a probe landed on Minmus that loses connection when it cannot "see' Kerbin. I wish to place three satellites in an equilateral triangle formation which should be able to provide a constant connection. I have worked out that the minimum altitude required for this is 60km with 120 degrees of separation. I plan to put the satellites into a higher orbit than this to provide additional clearance for the signal from the surface of Minmus, I believe a higher altitude also provides longevity in terms of resonance between the three satellites.

The three satellites are currently attached to a single vessel which is in an orbit of (or about to be in an orbit of) 60km x 20km. I understand the first satellite can deploy and burn prograde to 60 x 60 at any time.

My questions are; What is "resonance" anyway? How do I work it out/alter resonance characteristics? And how do I work out when to deploy the second and third satellites from their given orbit into the desired orbit?

I hope this all makes sense and my objectives are clear. I'm not an uneducated individual, however my maths skills are pretty poor, so terminology may need to be explained - though I did manage to workout the height of the orbit by simply constructing an equilateral triangle within a circle/orbit which is twice the radius of the given body (Minmus R = 60km. 2R = 120km. Altitude = 60km). Though please correct me if I have misunderstood this method. 

Thanks everyone! 

[steuben]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_resonance

Basically the low value integer ratio of the two orbital periods... in musical terms the harmonious chord of the two notes of the orbits. the music of the spheres indeed.

in the case of a simple constellation of comm sats like you have descibed it will be 1:1

You may want to up it to 4 or 5. The digital mathamagic that is floating point math will cause the sats to bunch up and separate again. more sats will cushion against this bunching.

[MR L A]

51 minutes ago, steuben said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_resonance

Basically the low value integer ratio of the two orbital periods... in musical terms the harmonious chord of the two notes of the orbits. the music of the spheres indeed.

in the case of a simple constellation of comm sats like you have descibed it will be 1:1

You may want to up it to 4 or 5. The digital mathamagic that is floating point math will cause the sats to bunch up and separate again. more sats will cushion against this bunching.

Ah, so the 1:1 ratio is the mathematical way of describing the amount of time take to complete an orbit by two objects around a given body? So, for example, an equatorial orbit that around body X take 1 hour and any other orbit, regardless of inclination etc. that also takes one hour?  

I believe using 4/5 satellites may be the way forwards, as you have suggested. Would this mean 4/5 satellites at the same orbit height as previously stated (of 60km) separated by 90/72 degrees? A lower minimum orbit would be possible but would negate the use of 4/5 over 3?

I believe I have understood correctly thus far, however I am still confused about when to deploy my other satellites..

Should I wait until the first satellite is 90/72 degrees in front of the second satellite AND the second satellite is at apoapsis (60km)? 

Thanks for your help so far!

 

[steuben]

Quote

Ah, so the 1:1 ratio is the mathematical way of describing the amount of time take to complete an orbit by two objects around a given body? So, for example, an equatorial orbit that around body X take 1 hour and any other orbit, regardless of inclination etc. that also takes one hour?  

it has less meaning the greater the difference in inclination of the two bodies. but yes.

As for the relative angle it would be 360 divided by the number of sats.

 Assuming a circular orbit of 60 km, you would lower the Pe of sat #2 so that it will be at Pe when sat #1 is 90 degrees ahead, or behind, sat #2. When it hits Pe circularize to 60 km. Wash rinse repeat.

The greater the number of sats the less precise you need to be for orbit altitude, relative angle, and inclination.

[MR L A]

8 minutes ago, steuben said:

it has less meaning the greater the difference in inclination of the two bodies. but yes.

As for the relative angle it would be 360 divided by the number of sats.

 Assuming a circular orbit of 60 km, you would lower the Pe of sat #2 so that it will be at Pe when sat #1 is 90 degrees ahead, or behind, sat #2. When it hits Pe circularize to 60 km. Wash rinse repeat.

The greater the number of sats the less precise you need to be for orbit altitude, relative angle, and inclination.

Excellent! The method you described is exactly what I've been searching for, thank you!