05:32 <queqiao--> <T​iv​ec​> hmm, a question on launching to specific LAN. Let's say I am launching Molniya satellites. If I launch to 0, 90, 180, 270 in four launches, will the satellites be placed in two distinct orbits (one on the 0-180 axis when looking top down on the planet, one on 90-270)?

05:33 <queqiao--> <T​iv​ec​> that is, if I am looking top down on the planets north pole, there will be two satellites on the blue "line" and two on the cyan, but they should be on opposite sides? https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/480397772248580098/1369910133857058876/image.png?ex=681d93bb&is=681c423b&hm=d334d671c65f6c4a9e3c28f59dd8ceb8475eca8c440392c021e4d47dc0554f69&

06:25 <queqiao--> <T​iv​ec​> first molniya satellite is up. now, this is going to be interesting, it's not looking very "synch" here, but orbit prediction over 100 days say it is with only 4 degree variation on ascending pass and descending pass over the whole period. I've added a station keep check after 100 days

06:25 <queqiao--> https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/480397772248580098/1369923156797554719/image.png?ex=681d9fdc&is=681c4e5c&hm=950786f09f5b9f2bdf81a199a5904cc0b02279b17e669f34dd1e04f371e6cf99&

07:27 <queqiao--> Reply to "T​iv​ec​: that is, if I am looking top down on the planets north pole, there will be two satellites..."

07:27 <queqiao--> <k​uz​in​at​0r​> It doesn't work like that. The orbits are incluned, so you're gonna get 4 distinct orbits

07:28 <queqiao--> Reply to "T​iv​ec​: hmm, a question on launching to specific LAN. Let's say I am launching Molniya satellites..."

07:28 <queqiao--> <p​in​ec​on​ez​> Molniya orbits (typically) are around 63.4°. That means four distinct planes for four satellites of different LANs. Your drawing doesn't show that.

07:28 <queqiao--> <p​in​ec​on​ez​> If you sent them to 90° exactly (orbital perturbations notwithstanding), you would have two planes as in your drawing, because you're essentially reducing the dimensions of the problem.

07:28 <queqiao--> <k​uz​in​at​0r​> But, relative to the surface they'll appear to be in the same orbit, but spaced out

07:30 <queqiao--> Reply to "T​iv​ec​: first molniya satellite is up. now, this is going to be interesting, it's not looking ver..."

07:30 <queqiao--> <k​uz​in​at​0r​> Do you have RCS? You definitely can tune it better

07:49 <queqiao--> Reply to "k​uz​in​at​0r​: Do you have RCS? You definitely can tune it better"

07:49 <queqiao--> <T​iv​ec​> i do have rcs, but the drift is minimal over 100 days, so i can do a small station keep burn at that point

07:51 <queqiao--> Reply to "k​uz​in​at​0r​: But, relative to the surface they'll appear to be in the same orbit, but spaced out"

07:51 <queqiao--> <T​iv​ec​> oh i see, because of the argument of periapsis then?

07:52 <queqiao--> <k​uz​in​at​0r​> If you wanna do station keeping go ahed. But you can avoid it for years. You can make your passes overlap so tightly they are varely distinguishable

07:53 <queqiao--> <T​iv​ec​> yeah, but here's the thing, i did that with the initial launch with a 20-30 day prediction. then i changed to like 100 days and it was vastly off

07:54 <queqiao--> <T​iv​ec​> but i can give it a try. do i burn at apogee for these tweaks or do i do it at the lowest point=

07:56 <queqiao--> Reply to "T​iv​ec​: oh i see, because of the argument of periapsis then?"

07:56 <queqiao--> <k​uz​in​at​0r​> No, it's because of the 1/2 day period. You wanna be passing over the specific spot at the specific time. The only way(I'm aware of) to do it is to launch one satellite, wait for the Earth to rotate, launch the other, etc

08:02 <queqiao--> Reply to "T​iv​ec​: but i can give it a try. do i burn at apogee for these tweaks or do i do it at the lowest..."

08:02 <queqiao--> <k​uz​in​at​0r​> First - you wanna make your orbit as "straight in vertical direction" as possible. I do it by eye, but a good indicator is the apogee speed. Never saw it smaller than 13m/s.

08:02 <queqiao--> <k​uz​in​at​0r​> Second - correct at perigee, trying collect the perigees at one point

08:05 <queqiao--> <T​iv​ec​> okay, i'll see what i can do with that.

09:20 <queqiao--> <T​iv​ec​> is there an inclination that is safe around the moon for polar-ish orbits?

09:30 <queqiao--> <T​iv​ec​> wikipedia to the rescue! 27°, 50°, 76°, and 86°

09:34 <queqiao--> <s​ii​ma​v> There's also that hard-to-read chart that 🥚 has pinned here.

09:46 <queqiao--> <T​iv​ec​> https://discord.com/channels/319857228905447436/480397772248580098/728371462964248617 <- that one?

10:00 <queqiao--> <T​iv​ec​> getting into a good orbit is hard and still keeping the inclination

10:29 <queqiao--> <T​iv​ec​> like, it's supposed to be 50 degrees for a stable orbit but the perturbation in apogee/perigee altitude is the bane of any low orbit here 😛 can't really go below 100km safely over any longer period it seems

10:29 <queqiao--> <T​iv​ec​> was hoping i could do a low buzz at ~25km but that doesn't seem to stay stable 😄