Unknown Orbit in Tracking Station

[CrashyMcCrashFace]

I hope I'm not asking too many noob questions. Anyway, what is this purple orbit? It appeared in the middle of game play session. I know it wasn't there when I started. I have a Level 3 Tracking Station and I tried toggling all the items. I googled it and C7 Aerospace Division seems to be a manufacturer but this doesn't help me understand any more.

https://i.imgur.com/C535Hcb.jpg

[Cpt Kerbalkrunch]

Looks like an available satellite contract. It should be available in Mission Control. This is showing you the orbit you'll have to put your satellite in if you accept the contract.

It's always good to look at these before you accept the contract. For instance, the orbit might be retrograde. This would be especially good to know around Jool or the sun.

Edited April 1, 2018 by Cpt Kerbalkrunch

[Geonovast]

19 minutes ago, CrashyMcCrashFace said:

I hope I'm not asking too many noob questions.

Pretty much what the forum is for.  Never feel bad about asking for help.

While I don't play career much myself, and have never had a satellite contract, I second checking the direction.  I've seen quite a few help threads on why the contract wouldn't complete, and it was because they had the sat running the wrong direction.

[CrashyMcCrashFace]

Thanks. That was a good clue to find what it is. It is an available contract, "Position a satellite in a tundra orbit around Kerbin". These things make me crazy. I can't just ignore them.

[Zeiss Ikon]

FWIW, a "tundra orbit" is a special kind of synchronous orbit.  It has the same orbital period as the host body (24 hours for Earth, 6 hours for Kerbin), but is neither circular nor equatorial.  The satellite will spend a significant fraction of its time close to zenith for the same point on Kerbin's surface, but won't remain fixed in the sky continuously like a geostationary position would.  They're used mainly to provide "most of the time" satellite services to high latitude markets (Canada, Alaska, Russia, New Zealand, Argentina/Chile, South Africa, etc.).  Sirius Radio used three satellites in tundra orbit to provide service to North America from 2000 to 2016, before changing to geostationary broadcast.  This allowed them to broadcast with lower transmitter power to the non-directional (broadly upward, but no more selective than that) antennae mounted on cars.

FWIW, I avoid "place a satellite in orbit X" contracts.  Not just because of the "which direction" question, but because it's easy to wind up making three or four launches trying to get the right orbit with limited maneuvering fuel in a reasonably compact probe/relay body.  IMO, tourist and rescue contracts give better payoff for the effort.

[Snark]

12 hours ago, Cpt Kerbalkrunch said:

It's always good to look at these before you accept the contract. For instance, the orbit might be retrograde.

Handy for a glance, yes, but they also show the actual numbers in the contract itself-- depending on your personal proclivities, the numbers can be more useful.  I'm a numbers kinda guy, I prefer to look at them there, myself.    For example, a retrograde orbit is instantly spottable because it has an inclination greater than 90 degrees (e.g. 174 or something like that).

29 minutes ago, Zeiss Ikon said:

FWIW, I avoid "place a satellite in orbit X" contracts.  Not just because of the "which direction" question, but because it's easy to wind up making three or four launches trying to get the right orbit with limited maneuvering fuel in a reasonably compact probe/relay body.

I suppose it's a matter of personal taste.  I find the satellite contracts actually easier and quicker than rescue contracts, because it's a one-way mission (don't have to plan for return and retrieval, nor do I have to lug around a heavy command pod).

For me, the comparison breaks down thus, between satellite and rescue contracts:

• The primary task:  It's a wash.  It's the exact same job in both cases:  "match the ship to a specific orbit".
• Challenges about satellite contract:  The orbit's more likely to be an oddball one.
• Challenges about rescue contract:  Have to rendezvous a specific target, so timing matters (unlike satellite contracts).  Have to plan for return/retrieval.  Have to carry a heavy crew pod.
• Side benefits, satellite contract:  Stick a relay antenna on the satellite, and you help build your comm network as a free side effect.
• Side benefits, rescue contract:  Get a free kerbal added to the crew roster.

...it pretty much comes out as a wash, for me.  I do some of one, some of the other.

Tourist contracts, I mostly skip because I find them tedious and very time-consuming for the amount of money they generate.  I'll usually do one or two of them in early career, not so much for the funds (they don't pay much), but because they're useful initial reputation-boosters for unlocking more interesting contracts.  Beyond that, though, I don't find them interesting enough to be worth my time playing, and their funds-reward-per-minute-of-playtime is pretty low compared with other stuff.

[GoSlash27]

3 hours ago, Snark said:

I suppose it's a matter of personal taste.  I find the satellite contracts actually easier and quicker than rescue contracts, because it's a one-way mission

*Snip*

3 hours ago, Snark said:

Tourist contracts, I mostly skip because I find them tedious and very time-consuming for the amount of money they generate.

Whereas I will happily take any of the 3, depending on the conditions and the payoff. 
*Tourists for me are a stripped- down manned flight without the science. I can do those for a lot less money than what it pays. I generally don't bother unless they want to go to orbit at the very least.
*Satellites... I built a spreadsheet for oddball vis-viva problems, so I always know how much DV the mission requires. Again, very lucrative. They can also generate more cash over time because they like offering contracts to alter the orbit.
*Rescues: All good things. Very profitable plus I get a free leveled-up Kerbal out of the deal.

That's the beauty part of KSP; everyone can enjoy it their own way

Happy Easter,
-Slashy

[CrashyMcCrashFace]

Thanks for all the extra info on this. It's very interesting. After thinking I was getting good at rescuing Kerbals from low orbit I accidentally accepted a contract to rescue from an orbit like this. It took several hours and many attempts but no Kerbal is left behind on my watch. I'll pass on anything related to these orbits for now. At least for a while.

[Zeiss Ikon]

If you launched in to an equatorial orbit and then had to make a 60-something degree inclination change, then try to match orbits, I can see why you were at it a while.  None of the individual bits is all that difficult, but combining them makes it a bit of a chore -- and a big dV sink as well.

[CrashyMcCrashFace]

19 hours ago, Zeiss Ikon said:

If you launched in to an equatorial orbit and then had to make a 60-something degree inclination change, then try to match orbits, I can see why you were at it a while.  None of the individual bits is all that difficult, but combining them makes it a bit of a chore -- and a big dV sink as well.

Yes that's what I was doing. I found changing the inclination of the orbit took A LOT more fuel than I expected. But it was good training/education for me. I now understand I don't need to make an equatorial launch. However I'm now interesting in trying to put up a satellite in a polar orbit that does not pass over KSC. In this case I think I need to change the orbit by 90 deg which is basically stopping in one direction and starting in another. Since the orbit doesn't go over KSC I won't have the chance to just go straight to the correct orbit. Just for the fun of it. If there's an even more difficult orbit to get into I'd love to hear about it.

Edited April 3, 2018 by CrashyMcCrashFace
Poor grammar

[Zeiss Ikon]

Yes, changing inclination (especially in a very low, hence very fast orbit) is very expensive.  If you're orbiting the Mun, it's actually slightly cheaper (in the universal currency of space travel, delta-V) to boost your Ap out near the edge of the SOI at the correct orientation, make your plane change at your new, very high apoapsis, then lower your apoapsis on your next periapsis pass.  I haven't checked, but I suspect the same is true of Kerbin orbit, or even Jool orbit -- except that in those cases, there is the Mun to help you, and around Jool there are five moons.  I've actually reversed my orbit (i.e. prograde to retrograde) around Kerbin for only a hundred or so m/s, by doing it well out, a little beyond the orbit of Minmus.  An ellipse with low Pe is going so slow out there, you could just about manage it by getting out and pushing.

Any polar orbit will pass over KSC twice a day, as Kerbin rotates under it, though most commonly the spacecraft won't be directly above the space center when it passes under the orbit.  To launch into that orbit, you just have to wait until the correct time of day (i.e. when the orbit is about to pass overhead), then launch the correct direction (north or south with the correct westward component, to kill your eastward velocity due to Kerbin's rotation) to get the correction orbital direction.

In fact, with a bit of calculation of your window, you can launch from KSC into an orbit of any inclination you like, oriented whatever way relative to the Sun or the stars -- just a matter of launching at the correct time, in the correct direction, so your corrections once in orbit won't exceed your dV budget.

[CrashyMcCrashFace]

 

6 hours ago, Zeiss Ikon said:

Any polar orbit will pass over KSC twice a day

I was just doing it and got all in position and then saw I was passing over KSC and it finally hit me the orbit plane doesn't rotate with the planet. Now I feel kind of dumb. But at least I learned and can do it the easy way from now on. Thanks for all the info.

Edit: Ridiculously easy once you learn how not to do it. Thanks.

Edited April 4, 2018 by CrashyMcCrashFace
Added image of what I learned