Is this possible...?

[ping111]

Heya. I\'m a science noob (as proven by my other ridiculous theories), but just wanted to see if either of these were possible.

First we have space-stationary orbit. (Spacestat) What this means is:

Is it possible to move so quickly in the opposite direction of a planet that you cancel out its angular momentum entirely, and sit still in space while the planet spins around itself? Probably not, but y\'know.

Next off is the satellite-visible orbit (Satvis).

What this means is that if we were to have a satellite, say, the Mün, would it be possible for a craft to move so slowly/quickly wherein we still remain inside the ring of the orbital path of the satellite itself (so the grey line in KSP), while still constantly being able to see the satellite itself? In simple terms, can you always see the moon in orbit?

Well, those are my midnight brainfarts. Cheers, and don\'t rip me apart too hard!

[Ydoow]

First we have space-stationary orbit. (Spacestat) What this means is:

Is it possible to move so quickly in the opposite direction of a planet that you cancel out its angular momentum entirely, and sit still in space while the planet spins around itself? Probably not, but y\'know.

I...

You...

Wha...

Oh god...

Next off is the satellite-visible orbit (Satvis).

What this means is that if we were to have a satellite, say, the Mün, would it be possible for a craft to move so slowly/quickly wherein we still remain inside the ring of the orbital path of the satellite itself (so the grey line in KSP), while still constantly being able to see the satellite itself? In simple terms, can you always see the moon in orbit?

You mean a geostationary orbit? It\'s already been done in KSP dozens of times

[Accelerando]

What this means is that if we were to have a satellite, say, the Mün, would it be possible for a craft to move so slowly/quickly wherein we still remain inside the ring of the orbital path of the satellite itself (so the grey line in KSP), while still constantly being able to see the satellite itself? In simple terms, can you always see the moon in orbit?

You may be able to establish a polar orbit at sufficient altitude that any moon will 'never' — at least for your purposes — appear to pass behind Kerbin.

Otherwise, your best bet is to orbit in tandem with the satellite. If you want to always see it while still technically orbiting Kerbin, then burn until you reach the satellite\'s altitude (but not its SOI) and then circularize your orbit so you are 'trailing' or 'forward' in orbit relative to the satellite. As long as you\'re not directly opposite the satellite relative to Kerbin, that is.

First we have space-stationary orbit. (Spacestat) What this means is:

Is it possible to move so quickly in the opposite direction of a planet that you cancel out its angular momentum entirely, and sit still in space while the planet spins around itself? Probably not, but y\'know.

Edited for whoopsie, I think... If you want to sit still relative to the surface, then you must achieve geostationary orbit, wherein you match velocity with the surface of Kerbin (so technically in this case it\'s wrong to say 'sit still in space while the planet spins around itself').

[UmbralRaptor]

Heya. I\'m a science noob (as proven by my other ridiculous theories), but just wanted to see if either of these were possible.

First we have space-stationary orbit. (Spacestat) What this means is:

Is it possible to move so quickly in the opposite direction of a planet that you cancel out its angular momentum entirely, and sit still in space while the planet spins around itself? Probably not, but y\'know.

Not as such. If you\'re not moving in intertial reference frame, the planet\'s gravity will pull you in. To a first approximation, you can ignore the planet\'s rotation.

Next off is the satellite-visible orbit (Satvis).

What this means is that if we were to have a satellite, say, the Mün, would it be possible for a craft to move so slowly/quickly wherein we still remain inside the ring of the orbital path of the satellite itself (so the grey line in KSP), while still constantly being able to see the satellite itself? In simple terms, can you always see the moon in orbit?

Well, those are my midnight brainfarts. Cheers, and don\'t rip me apart too hard!

In real life, the L1, L2, L4, and L5 points will work. Within KSP, just put something in the same orbit as the Mün, but some amount ahead or behind in its orbit. I\'m not sure if there are inclined orbits that also work.

[maltesh]

Most inclined orbits will work. In KSP, the important thing is that A) you orbit the planet in the same period as the other satellite, and position yourself so that the line of sight never passes through the planet you\'re both orbiting. As a result, there\'s a large range of eccentricities, inclinations, ascending node longitudes, and perigee arguments where you can pull this off, as long as you have the same semimajor axis as the other satellite.

[trublud]

it would be possible, if the developers were to add Langrangian Points into the game, but until they do, its going to bee near impossible to do what you are asking

;P ;P ;P ;P ;P ;P ;P ;P ;P ;P ;P ;P

[Vanamonde]

You may be able to establish a polar orbit at sufficient altitude that any moon will 'never' — at least for your purposes — appear to pass behind Kerbin.

I can\'t visualize that. Wouldn\'t any two orbiting objects (that aren\'t in the same orbit) periodically find themselves on opposite sides of the primary? The orbits must necessarily cross each other at 2 points, and it may be a long time between alignments, but from time to time one would end up at each crossover point and be occulted from the other. Um, right?

[Accelerando]

I can\'t visualize that. Wouldn\'t any two orbiting objects (that aren\'t in the same orbit) periodically find themselves on opposite sides of the primary? The orbits must necessarily cross each other at 2 points, and it may be a long time between alignments, but from time to time one would end up at each crossover point and be occulted from the other. Um, right?

Eventually, perhaps. I believe so, but I don\'t really know. Hence why I said 'at least for your purposes' — i.e. for as long as ping is actually going to be sitting at his computer running the mission.

[maltesh]

If the two objects have exactly the same period, you can often avoid the obscuring situation by proper placement.

Consider the situation where object A is in an equatorial circular orbit around Kerbin, and Object B is in a polar circular orbit around Kerbin, with the same radius (and thus, same semimajor axis, and consequently same period).

Furthermore define the positions of object A and B such that both are together whenever the two orbits cross one another. If A and B are at orbits of sufficient altitude, the line of sight between them will never pass through Kerbin, as long as they have the same period.

Similarly, consider the situation where B is in an elliptical orbit around Kerbin, but again, with the same semimajor axis. define their positions so that when B is at periapsis, A is directly above it, and when B is at apoapsis, A is directly below it. You can find an elliptical orbit that matches these criteria such that the line of sight never passes through Kerbin, if the orbit of A is high enough. And in this situation, there\'s no danger of A and B colliding, as they never reach the intersection points at the same time.

Though if the player ever causes either craft to leave the rail, the two craft won\'t have the same period any more, and an occlusion will eventually occur.

[Guest butt head]

Heya. I\'m a science noob (as proven by my other ridiculous theories), but just wanted to see if either of these were possible.

First we have space-stationary orbit. (Spacestat) What this means is:

Is it possible to move so quickly in the opposite direction of a planet that you cancel out its angular momentum entirely, and sit still in space while the planet spins around itself? Probably not, but y\'know.

well yesish dont for get that every thing is relative so you may be holding still on a chair but you could say that you are moving 1000 miles per hour because that the speed at which the earth rotates(at the equator)or many thousand of miles per hour relitive to the sun i think that the earth orbits the sun at 22000-24000 miles per hour and then even the solar system is orbiting the center of the galaxy dont know how fast though and even that is riding the cosmic shock wave that is accelerating every thing away from the center universe but to do what you are asking in simpler terms yes and no ??? the closest you can come to this is to orbit kerbol the solar sstums star and retro burntill you speed hits 0 then you will be completely static for a short time but this isnt even half of your simple answer because as soon as you hit 0 and stop burning you will accelerate towards kerbol because of its gravity a way to fix that would be to point your ship at what i think it called nim-(directly away from the orbital body then burn with the exact amount of thrust to cancel out the gravity thrust acceleration=rate of gravitational acceleration(the sun has an acceleration rate of 274meters per second dont know about kerbol though) and also kerbol it not moving so it would not fly away like the sun would if you help completely still if you were still relative to the kerbol then kreath would fly away but when you are in it soi then good luck canceling all your kerbol orbital speed and keep the kreath from exerting it 9meters per second at the same time so no effectively in game no but still yes NEXT QUESTION

Next off is the satellite-visible orbit (Satvis).

What this means is that if we were to have a satellite, say, the Mün, would it be possible for a craft to move so slowly/quickly wherein we still remain inside the ring of the orbital path of the satellite itself (so the grey line in KSP), while still constantly being able to see the satellite itself? In simple terms, can you always see the moon in orbit?

Well, those are my midnight brainfarts. Cheers, and don\'t rip me apart too hard!

once again yes and no not in the game yes and no i the game you cant get in a Lagrange point because it requires 2 bodys to act on you at once while the game only lets 1 but you can still get in a position where it will act like 1 just get in to the exactly the same orbit as what you what to stay static to and DO NOT GET IN IT SOI so your not orbiting it but the same thing as its orbiting so to do that to the mun get in to a 11300km orbit with out any inclination and then you will be static to the mun but make sher you end up in the right place because moving will get you out of the static point to stay static to the kreath then get in to kerbol orbit and match its orbit(i cant remember it) and same deal(just stay out of its soi so orbiting the sun)

so tailing is possible just not the same way as in real life

[Vanamonde]

Not trying to be argumentatie: just trying to understand.

A is in an equatorial circular orbit around Kerbin, and Object B is in a polar circular orbit around Kerbin, with the same radius (and thus, same semimajor axis, and consequently same period).

In that case, wouldn\'t the objects either collide (if they were precisely aligned) or gradually drift out of that arrangment (if they were not precisely aligned)? I realize a slight mis-match would still keep that arrangment working for up to zillions of years, but I want to make sure I\'m understanding the concept, and whether it\'s theoretically possible that they\'d never lose sight of each other.

define their positions so that when B is at periapsis, A is directly above it, and when B is at apoapsis, A is directly below it.

I think I see how there could be a harmonic arrangment so that this happened every other orbit, or something like that, but I don\'t see how the timing could be maintained if they have different orbital heights and therefore different orbital periods. Is it possible you could post an illustration?

[maltesh]

All elliptical orbits with the same semi-major axis around a body have the same orbital period, regardless of eccentricity, and the travel time from periapsis to apoapsis (or vice versa) is always half that orbital period.

]

In the image, both of the orbits have semimajor axis = 1 unit, and the elliptical orbit has eccentricity 0.8. Travel time for objects in both orbits from the green point to the red point is the same. As long as the body both are orbiting is smaller than the radius of the circular orbit , there\'s always some eccentricity you can pick that will maintain a constant line-of-sight between the two objects, as long as they have the exact same semimajor axis.

And that\'s just if we restrict them to the same plane. If you don\'t care at all how far apart the objects wind up being, , you have options like throwing the second object on a hyperbolic orbit that takes it far above or below the first object\'s orbital plane, quickly enough so that the first object doesn\'t have time to slip around behind the planet before occlusion becomes impossible.

[Vanamonde]

That is just damned cool. I have to try it now. Or, I will as soon as I have some .16 rockets that fly consistently. And sincere thanks for taking the time to make a diagram. I hope it wasn\'t rude of me to ask for that.

Ooh! I just occurs to me that I can set this up in Universe Sandbox. I\'ll be back.

Ack. That layout seems to be making US crash for some reason. But I had it running long enough to play with it a little, and something occurred to me. With your ship where the yellow triangle is for a starting position (on the attached), a pair of lower-orbit commo sats in either the red-star or blue-star positions would give you relayed line-of-sight/communications to any point on the planet, permanently. Except perhaps the poles. But maybe one could incline the orbits of the sats?