Jiraiyah Posted October 28, 2016 Share Posted October 28, 2016 Just now, Galileo said: Sure you could do it that way too. kk, thanks for your time sir. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JadeOfMaar Posted October 28, 2016 Share Posted October 28, 2016 It would be a grand idea to use SCANsat > Minimap. If you're in KSP 1.2 then KER (and I'd recommend VesselMover for warping over the planet's surface but) are not available. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galileo Posted October 29, 2016 Author Share Posted October 29, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jiraiyah Posted October 29, 2016 Share Posted October 29, 2016 @Galileo Sir can you start a wiki about planets, with info like radius, semi major axis, if stationary orbits are possible on them or not and the orbit of stationary ones? thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galileo Posted October 29, 2016 Author Share Posted October 29, 2016 2 minutes ago, Jiraiyah said: @Galileo Sir can you start a wiki about planets, with info like radius, semi major axis, if stationary orbits are possible on them or not and the orbit of stationary ones? thanks There is a pdf included in zip folder that has the info you are looking for Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jiraiyah Posted October 29, 2016 Share Posted October 29, 2016 6 minutes ago, Galileo said: There is a pdf included in zip folder that has the info you are looking for oopse, my bad, never looked into it, did you ever considered adding a planet wiki mod like the one existing for OPM? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galileo Posted October 29, 2016 Author Share Posted October 29, 2016 Just now, Jiraiyah said: oopse, my bad, never looked into it, did you ever considered adding a planet wiki mod like the one existing for OPM? Naw that's just another thing I don't have time for right now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jiraiyah Posted October 29, 2016 Share Posted October 29, 2016 (edited) 12 minutes ago, Galileo said: Naw that's just another thing I don't have time for right now oh well, have to stick to old school way (aka spread sheets ) @Galileo Umm am i doing something wrong? isn't stationary orbit = semi major axis - radius? if that is the case, for Gael ==> 13984360 - 600 = 13983760 ? beyond it's sphere of influence? or did you put that km in the pdf for semi major axis by accident and it is m ? Edited October 29, 2016 by Jiraiyah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JadeOfMaar Posted October 29, 2016 Share Posted October 29, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, Jiraiyah said: @Galileo Sir can you start a wiki about planets, with info like radius, semi major axis, if stationary orbits are possible on them or not and the orbit of stationary ones? thanks I have plans for something like that already, with a lot of those wonderful details. The details will also include total approach dV and travel time between planets. Currently this "wiki" will only exist as a series of high-resolution JPG images but I may expand into a fan site on Wikia or the like (or especially, make a KSPedia like @jandcando did). There's a sample in a spoiler. The sample image will change as I'm still gathering data and deciding which data to feature. Spoiler Edited October 29, 2016 by JadeOfMaar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JadeOfMaar Posted October 29, 2016 Share Posted October 29, 2016 . 1 hour ago, Jiraiyah said: oh well, have to stick to old school way (aka spread sheets ) @Galileo Umm am i doing something wrong? isn't stationary orbit = semi major axis - radius? if that is the case, for Gael ==> 13984360 - 600 = 13983760 ? beyond it's sphere of influence? or did you put that km in the pdf for semi major axis by accident and it is m ? Synchronous orbit altitude for Gael is the same as for Kerbin: 2,863,333km and is not mentioned in the included PDF. The formula for this thing is far from that simple... http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Synchronous_orbit#Semi-synchronous_and_similar_orbits Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jiraiyah Posted October 29, 2016 Share Posted October 29, 2016 11 minutes ago, JadeOfMaar said: I have plans for something like that already, with a lot of those wonderful details. The details will also include total approach dV and travel time between planets. Currently this "wiki" will only exist as a series of high-resolution JPG images but I may expand into a fan site on Wikia or the like (or especially, make a KSPedia like @jandcando did). There's a sample in a spoiler. The sample image will change as I'm still gathering data and deciding which data to feature. Hide contents I love that sync orbit SMA : ? part Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JadeOfMaar Posted October 29, 2016 Share Posted October 29, 2016 Yeah. At the time I had only just thought that people would love to have that and added the empty field for it. Then I received the value(s) to insert into that field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jiraiyah Posted October 29, 2016 Share Posted October 29, 2016 Just now, JadeOfMaar said: Yeah. At the time I had only just thought that people would love to have that and added the empty field for it. Then I received the value(s) to insert into that field. by the way the link you sent has one formula for 1/2 of a syncronous orbit, i had seen people say in reddit that semi major - radius = sync orbit and for kerbin (with the data from wiki) that was true, but the data from pdf got me confused, what is the meaning of that semi major axis in the pdf then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JadeOfMaar Posted October 29, 2016 Share Posted October 29, 2016 (edited) That's the distance of the planets from Ciro, and the moons from their parents. I'm betting you have to do a lot of guesswork for the SMA of yourself... But how do you know that the answer you get for such a simple (and vague?) formula is the correct answer? Edited October 29, 2016 by JadeOfMaar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jiraiyah Posted October 29, 2016 Share Posted October 29, 2016 7 minutes ago, JadeOfMaar said: That's the distance of the planets from Ciro, and the moons from their parents. I'm betting you have to do a lot of guesswork for the SMA of yourself... But how do you know that the answer you get for such a simple (and vague?) formula is the correct answer? well in case of kerbin : 3 463.35 km - 600 km = 2 863.35 km !!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JadeOfMaar Posted October 29, 2016 Share Posted October 29, 2016 You have the right answer but how do you know (example, you try this at another planet) what the correct starting SMA is? What's the significance of 3,463.35km? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jiraiyah Posted October 29, 2016 Share Posted October 29, 2016 1 minute ago, JadeOfMaar said: You have the right answer but how do you know (example, you try this at another planet) what the correct starting SMA is? What's the significance of 3,463.35km? umm no i didn't and tbh i don't know, honestly, these maths are above my brain level Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jiraiyah Posted October 29, 2016 Share Posted October 29, 2016 (edited) Hmm, i think i found the proper math take a look is this correct? cubic root (t * t * gravitational factor / (4 * PI * PI)) in above formula t is the solar day in seconds (so for example gael is 6h * 60 * 60) here is the result : the result is in meters and of course from center of buddy, so we divide it by 1000 and then reduce the radius and we get the geostationary radius, if this is correct, only Icarus won't have it woot Edited October 29, 2016 by Jiraiyah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galileo Posted October 29, 2016 Author Share Posted October 29, 2016 Oh the math hurt my simple brain! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jiraiyah Posted October 29, 2016 Share Posted October 29, 2016 1 minute ago, Galileo said: Oh the math hurt my simple brain! trust me it did the same to me, but i think those numbers are accurate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JadeOfMaar Posted October 29, 2016 Share Posted October 29, 2016 (edited) Lol @Galileo @Jiraiyah I'll have to open KSP to confirm some of those numbers but I like what I see. I just made a quick Github wiki featuring Gael (excluding moons) and Niven. I don't like that the content area is cramped as it is so I may go and hunt down a web host providing MediaWiki or DokuWiki engine. Cramps aside I like how this test turned out. Edited October 29, 2016 by JadeOfMaar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CommanderSmith Posted October 29, 2016 Share Posted October 29, 2016 4 hours ago, Jiraiyah said: …in above formula t is the solar day in seconds (so for example gael is 6h * 60 * 60)… I do believe you mean the sidereal day. Sidereal day: The time taken for one complete revolution of a body about its axis, measured relative to the stars, which are perceived as "motionless". Solar day: The time taken for the Sun to be in the exact same position in the sky. I'll try to explain why they're different: A body will complete one full rotation about its axis (a sidereal day), however the Sun will not be in the same position in the sky. This is because the body has moved a fraction of its orbit about the Sun, so, relative to the stars, the Sun is in a different position. Thus, a small amount of additional rotation is required to complete a solar day. Solar days are useful for things on the surface of bodies (you know, like the day/night cycle, which is fairly important), however sidereal days are what you ought to be using for most other things, as they attempt to have an absolute, rather than relative, reference frame from which to measure the rotation of the body. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JadeOfMaar Posted October 30, 2016 Share Posted October 30, 2016 (edited) On 10/29/2016 at 0:47 AM, Galileo said: Yes. : D [Updated image after quote] I think the template is complete now. Maybe Tellumo is a class L planet, not K. Oh. Hey @Jiraiyah ... *points down* Spoiler Added data to Niven. Edited October 30, 2016 by JadeOfMaar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jiraiyah Posted October 30, 2016 Share Posted October 30, 2016 13 hours ago, CommanderSmith said: I do believe you mean the sidereal day. Sidereal day: The time taken for one complete revolution of a body about its axis, measured relative to the stars, which are perceived as "motionless". Solar day: The time taken for the Sun to be in the exact same position in the sky. I'll try to explain why they're different: A body will complete one full rotation about its axis (a sidereal day), however the Sun will not be in the same position in the sky. This is because the body has moved a fraction of its orbit about the Sun, so, relative to the stars, the Sun is in a different position. Thus, a small amount of additional rotation is required to complete a solar day. Solar days are useful for things on the surface of bodies (you know, like the day/night cycle, which is fairly important), however sidereal days are what you ought to be using for most other things, as they attempt to have an absolute, rather than relative, reference frame from which to measure the rotation of the body. Ok, here is the finished table with the update, thanks for the info sir, but something is interesting, every single planet and their moon has geostationary orbit other than icarus !!! also, that sphere of influence on Catullus, wow !!!! 6 hours ago, JadeOfMaar said: Yes. : D I think the template is complete now. Maybe Tellumo is a class L planet, not K. Oh. Hey @Jiraiyah ... *points down* Hide contents Added data to Niven. well either you are missing something or something odd is going on, based on the calculations i get same result on Niven, but check my previous post (full table with moons) all the moons has geostationary orbits inside their sphere of influence !!! or something in the pdf is wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JadeOfMaar Posted October 30, 2016 Share Posted October 30, 2016 @Jiraiyah You're right. That's just wonderful.... Tellumo's sync orbit altitude is indeed very wrong. It should be 10,613,665m. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts