First Circular Orbit with deployed Satellite

[Warshawski]

Hello all! I finally discovered how to make my orbits very circular ( even if the center of the circle is somewhere off-center of the middle of Kerbin) and also flew my first orbiting satellite. Right now, I\'m going on fifty orbits (with warp).Unfortunately I\'m at school and as such can\'t get on Imageshack, so I attached the proof pictures.

[JupiterII]

Almost as good as mine!(Actuly yours is better)

[Panichio]

Sorry but I wouldn\'t classify that orbit as \'very circular\'.

[Feragorn]

Like he said, the orbit\'s center is not on Kerbal\'s center. Doesn\'t mean it isn\'t circular.

[Epsilon]

Yeah, it\'s circular...

But it\'s also not really circular either.

MIND BLOWN

Depends on what you are basing it on. Real orbits are based at the center of the planet.

[JupiterII]

You made the map make a circule but the orbits not circular. Still better than mine though!

[Tim_Barrett]

Why do people use modded parts for such a simple task?

Doesn\'t that kinda ruin the fun of a challenge? :/

[Tiberion]

Why do people use modded parts for such a simple task?

Doesn\'t that kinda ruin the fun of a challenge? :/

Nope, not really. It still takes the technical knowledge to figure out (or read about) orbital mechanics, and the flying skill - with a FEW modded tanks and engines the requirements of a properly built rocket are bypassed, but easily 90% of the modded parts are reasonable and still require thoughtful builds.

In fact, some of the mods allow for the actual challening of building proper simulations rockets, rather than piles of boosters, or a single-stage 5-tank stock ships

There\'s really no call to be elitist about it.

[Tim_Barrett]

Nope, not really. It still takes the technical knowledge to figure out (or read about) orbital mechanics, and the flying skill - with a FEW modded tanks and engines the requirements of a properly built rocket are bypassed, but easily 90% of the modded parts are reasonable and still require thoughtful builds.

In fact, some of the mods allow for the actual challening of building proper simulations rockets, rather than piles of boosters, or a single-stage 5-tank stock ships

There\'s really no call to be elitist about it.

'such a simple task'

'building proper simulations rockets, rather than piles of boosters, or a single-stage 5-tank stock ships'

Yea... you don\'t really need to build a mountain of fuel tanks and boosters to get into that orbit... :/

Most of the new users attempt to build the biggest rocket they can build for their first orbit, when really all you need is some clever and efficient engineering/knowledge of orbits (direct ascent isn\'t the way to go...)

[Tiberion]

yes, thus the 'or single-stage 5-tank stock ships'

My point is, stock ships aren\'t some great achievement, they are in fact at times at bit silly as they force you into doing the opposite of what would be best in real practice.

Using stock-only doesn\'t make you \'hardcore\' - its just a different set of engineering problems to solve, and outside of a scant few mods that offered uber-thrust or 20,000 units of fuel for 5 weight units, you aren\'t even bypassing the 'make it efficient' part of the game.

[Tim_Barrett]

yes, thus the 'or single-stage 5-tank stock ships'

My point is, stock ships aren\'t some great achievement, they are in fact at times at bit silly as they force you into doing the opposite of what would be best in real practice.

Using stock-only doesn\'t make you \'hardcore\' - its just a different set of engineering problems to solve, and outside of a scant few mods that offered uber-thrust or 20,000 units of fuel for 5 weight units, you aren\'t even bypassing the 'make it efficient' part of the game.

Then you will love this: http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/forum/index.php?topic=2925.0

I don\'t think I will use wobbly rockets or nova\'s main pack for awhile. These kept the game original and challenging - while still providing a substantial line of parts.

[Warshawski]

I used NovaSilisko\'s parts and CaptainSlug\'s PLF and 1.75m booster set. Admittedly, I probably could have gotten away with two boosters.... but the first three times I tried to launch this rocket it blew up on the pad. And then I added boosters. Who\'d\'ve thought?

Any rate, if that first wasn\'t circular, then this is almost on the money. Same rocket.

[Rickenbacker]

You can have perfectly circular orbits (which are by definition centered on the planet) look non-centered by messing around with the camera in the map view. So the first one might be perfectly circular and yet look a little off. The way to make sure is to check that the periapsis and the apoapsis are basically the same.

[frenchie16]

Your orbit is perfectly circular iff (not a typo-if and only if) your periapsis and apoapsis altitudes are exactly the same.

You can\'t have a circular orbit with the center not being at Kerbin\'s center.

All orbits are ellipses. An ellipse has two points called foci. If the two foci are in the same place, the ellipse is a circle.

In the case of a spacecraft orbiting a planet, the planet is always at one of the foci of the orbit.

What this means is, your orbit is NOT at all a very circular one. I wouldn\'t call it circular unless your apoapsis and periapsis altitudes are within a few thousand meters of each other (how much the difference can be depends on the altitude of the orbit, of course), and it\'s certainly possible to get within a few hundred or even a few dozen meters of perfectly circular, especially with the addition of RCS and translational controls.

For more info on orbits, read the wikipedia article on Kepler\'s laws.

[Warshawski]

And you\'re assuming I care to go for a classical circular. If you move my apo and peri out to their actual centerpoint, it is a circle, simply not in relation to the planet.

[frenchie16]

Nope. It\'s an ellipse.

[Tiberion]

Well given enough power and a powerful flight computer, you could technically stay in a circular flight path that\'s not centered on the planet - but its not so much an orbit in the classical sense (IE: gravity vs. centrifugal force offsetting each other)

[Warshawski]

Meh. The second photo I posted was a thousand or so meters off of being perfectly circular, so FCO still stands.

[Tiberion]

Yeah for sure, I typically consider anything with less than 5k 'good enough' - and once you are that close, its SUPER easy to fine tune it more if needed.

[Epsilon]

And you\'re assuming I care to go for a classical circular. If you move my apo and peri out to their actual centerpoint, it is a circle, simply not in relation to the planet.

It\'s not classical circular. It\'s REAL circular.

Your orbit IS NOT circular. Get that in your head. It just is perceived that way.

[DrSinn]

Very nice, is the orbit picture with the orbit outlined from a mod ingame or did you just zoom out and draw them yourself purely from eye?

[Kryten]

That\'s the in-game orbit viewer-press \'m\' to see it.

If you you\'ve just upgraded to the recent version, I\'d recommend going through the (updated) tutorial; it gives a good rundown of the new features.

[DrSinn]

That\'s the in-game orbit viewer-press \'m\' to see it.

If you you\'ve just upgraded to the recent version, I\'d recommend going through the (updated) tutorial; it gives a good rundown of the new features.

Thanks, I like deploying sat\'s but it\'s been purely by feel and on-the-fly vertical speed calculations.