here's a brief rundown of the markers:
the green arrow is your apoapsis (the highest point in your orbit)
the orange arrow is your periapsis (the lowest in your orbit)
when getting planning an encounter, there are two markers that show up:
the first one (the white one that looks like a rocket) is the visual representation of where your spacecraft will be closest to your target for a closest approach. the second one (the other white one that looks like a satellite) is the closest your target will be to you visually at your closest approach.
additionally, when in the map view, there is a box on the right that has all of your orbit details. to save "space" (pun intended) in this post, I won't detail each here, but at this Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_elements. everything in the orbit details is described in great detail and then some on this page.
note that if you are just starting out, I wouldn't worry a whole lot about everything in the orbit details box except inclination. your Inclination is critical for things like rendezvous, and so are the rest but the rest are for calculations like delta-v required for something, transfers, etc. Hope this helped, and happy flying.
@KitKart. your closest approach is never guaranteed to be at apoapsis. The closest approach calculator determines your closest approach in a given time window (I have no idea how long that time window is), so the point where your spacecraft is closest to your target will be your closest approach. I've had orbits where my apoapsis was so high that I the only time I was able to get close was at my periapsis, or a whole day in front of me.
@lordverminaard. That's great to hear. Once you get the hang of rendezvous, venturing further into space will be no more difficult. If precision is a big factor, Wikipedia has a good article on calculating the proper phase angle from when you are already in space to rendezvous. link here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_phasing. the article isn't specific to rendezvous, but everything mentioned in the article has an application in orbital rendezvous. don't be intimidated by the math in the article, it's just plugging in the proper variables in the equations (I did a whole presentation on the topic of orbital rendezvous when I was in high school by going into the math, and a few people understood it, so I know it can be understood by people with at least high school education). happy flying.
you can look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ListofUnitedStatesrockets for a list of American made rockets, in which I am sure you can find something to make. you could try the Delta III possibly.
From my current limited knowledge in space logistics, the most "efficient" way of planning a rendezvous is to a satellite is by waiting until your target is in a good position, and there are ways of determining this optimal position for a given target, but I don't know how at the moment. But, because it's the most efficient means does not mean it's the only way. I typically wait until my target is around 15 to 20 from vertical until I launch when the target is in roughly a100 km orbit, and design my spacecraft with extra fuel on board to compensate for any extra delta-v I have to expend to rendezvous my orbit. For a more complete guide on how to rendezvous, I recommend Scott Manley's "Orbital Rendezvous And Docking Tutorial" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHkY3FusJIQ. In this video, he details how to "catch up," or "slow down" relative to your target for getting a close rendezvous.
On your other question (about the burn gizmo, delta-v, etc), the burn gizmo is a tool that allows you to plan and execute burns. The green pull things ( I have no idea what they would actually be called) are to used to change your velocity prograde and retrograde (in your planned burn, they add, or subtract velocity to your orbit). The red ones are for changing your inclination (the angle your orbit rises/ falls relative to the equator). The blue ones change your velocity in the normal (outward) or anti-normal (inward) direction (these are very useful to use, but I don't have enough room to detail what this means. for more information these, you will have to consult YouTube or Wikipedia for that). Delta-v is the more scientific of saying the maximum speed that your spacecraft can propel you to or the required change in velocity needed to perform a maneuver. It depends on the situation which one you use, but it's pretty obvious most of the time which one it's referring to.
Other terms you might want to know: (I listed these just in case you don't know them, and not to insult your intelligence, I simply listed these here because I have no idea if you know these critical terms for orbital mechanics): apoapsis: highest point in your orbit periapsis: lowest point in your orbit right ascension *(aka, longitude of the ascending node): the angle from a reference direction (typically the vernal point. )
*argument of periapsis: the angle that you orbit's periapsis is measured when measured from the ascending node (note that this is not relative to the equato
I found the sound design to superb. I always enjoy going to the moon because I love the Luna motif that always plays with its somber, and lonely, but beautiful tones so fitting for a moon. I can remember getting chills when I first opened up the game because of the song that played, and the 16th note rhythm that occasionally plays that makes the song that's playing sound like an entirely different song, while also encouraging me to push on through my frustrations. I only have two complaints with the music and sound design: one, that there aren't different songs for Urados and Tydos. I would love to hear the song that would have been played around them. that would have been a reward enough for me when I finally got into their sphere of influence. Second, that most of the sound effects (especially the rcs thrusters) are on a loop that you can clearly hear when it repeats. This isn't to say I have a problem with the looping tracks (that's how I listen to my music), it's that you can clearly hear the beginning and end of the loop even though it's supposed to sound continuous.
I have this same issue. I made my RCS nozzles equidistant from the center of mass, and nothing (in terms of rotation. translation was just fine). I noticed though that the rotation mode of the RCS worked fine when the nozzles weren't equidistant from the center of mass, i.e. the rcs was only at the top bit of my spacecraft, and I think that is where this issue lies. I think the game doesn't know how to induce a rotation when everything is equally spaced from the center of mass (I could, of course, be horribly wrong in this assumption in which case it would be neat to know what actually causes this problem).
aww, but that takes the fun away from it :) If there is no tutorial on how to do this ever put in place, here is a video on how to "match orbits" (aka rendezvous) and dock made by Scott Manley (it's for KSP, but the orbital mechanics part of it is still applies). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHkY3FusJIQ. I sincerely hope this helps and that I didn't misunderstand what you said. I agree though, the developers should add a rendezvous tutorial somehow for those less knowledgeable on the topic of space travel. My first exposure to rendezvous was in the original SimpleRockets, so because there was no tutorial on the topic and before I started to look up how to actually rendezvous, I was intentionally launching my orbits in the opposite direction to the spacecraft I was trying to rendezvous with thinking that I could reverse my direction if I could only get close enough (I was a lot younger then).
Truth be told, when I play space simulators like KSP, and SimpleRockets, I never really worry getting withing 1 km of my target. although it is an ideal, I typically get within 5 to 6 km and make my way to the spacecraft. It's a little more expensive in fuel, but it a space simulator where money is no obstacle and you are literally creating the thing you are sending up to dock with (you can incorporate the minute amount of extra fuel into your craft's fuel budget).
@Caveman999, to be honest, I don't know how much of this was a bug. the rocket I used was massive, and maybe (I'm just guessing here. I have no idea) the game didn't have enough time to determine that the command pod should have exploded with the rest of the spacecraft. bare in mind that I was accelerated to 15,000 m/s instantly. also, thanks for the info on adding pictures to posts.
@Caveman999 I sincerely hope so. This game would be reduced to nothing more to another boring simulator, which I suppose it would be even with fun easter eggs, but to my understanding, the point of this game is to build your own spacecraft to test and have fun with it. that goal can't be accomplished if there is nothing to test or play on.
@Caveman999 granted (referring to the original post you tagged me in), but that still is only one. in simpleplanes, the island "easter eggs" (though I know they aren't by definition) were all fun to go to and had interesting things to do. you first had to discover the island, then find discoverable locations on said island, and none of them were the same. The reason I bring this up is because locations like these scattered across the solar system would be considered easter eggs given the size of the world, and would probably be fun to find as well as play around with.
To say the least, I hope there are intentions of adding interesting locations and things to do at each planet. What is the point of building a spaceship other than to say that it went to a place? I understand that ksp suffers from a similar problem and people still enjoy it, but it also 7 different and unique locations each with interesting things spread around the place (though sparsely).
here's my rocket I made for the SR2 weekly challenge I:
the unnecessarily huge heavy hauler gen. 1 (UHHG): https://www.simplerockets.com/c/gHm3G1/unnecessarily-huge-heavy-hauler-Gen-1 a few specs
Price: $25,789
total delta-v: 9,742 m/s
8 total stages, with 12 engines in total.
I made this for a returnable mission to the moon, but I was able to land on Cylero when I was just screwing around. I know I can do better on the delta-v, but it is what it is right now. I'll probably post another better rocket later. the proof my lunar landing is on my post of the SR@ weekly challenge I post by bmcclory (link to the post https://www.simplerockets.com/Forums/View/3060/SR2-Weekly-Challenge-I)
how about an artificial planet the size of a small moon orbiting close to the sun that would have served as some power station or sorts to an ancient civilization.
Or how about a geosynchronous moon to an inner planet at an obscure inclination. I haven't seen that done in a space simulator before.
one thing that would serve this simulator well would be something along the lines of the docking port alignment indicator mod for KSP. I have never used the normal method of docking in KSP after installing that mod because I gave you so much more information in a more concise manner. That would be something incredible to see implemented in this game.
after digging around, I found what I believe to be the planets' radii in the file location \AppData\LocalLow\Jundroo\SimpleRockets 2\UserData\SolarSystems_default_
from there I found the planets' radii, orbits, atmospheric information (although no height of the atmosphere, but I tested that height to be about 60k up thanks to the "you can't timewarp in atmosphere")
here is some of the information on droo for one:
surface gravity: 9.798
radius: 1,274,200 meters
mass: you have to calculate this one, but it's 2.383561897×10^23
using the formula F=(G*M_p*M_2) / (r^2)
this simplifies down to g = (G*M_p)/(r^2), then you solve for M_p
M_p= (g*r^2)/G
where:
M_p = mass of planet
g= gravitational acceleration (9.798)
r= radius of the planet (1274200)
G= newton's gravitational constant (6.674×10^ -11)
I retrieved this from https://hypertextbook.com/facts/2002/SamanthaDong2.shtml if I made a mistake in my math here. here is a link to a graph I made in desmos to help calculate this https://www.desmos.com/calculator/wmh0dhdu57
@XjayIndustrys, glad to help.
+1 5.5 years agohere's a brief rundown of the markers:
+1 5.5 years agothe green arrow is your apoapsis (the highest point in your orbit)
the orange arrow is your periapsis (the lowest in your orbit)
when getting planning an encounter, there are two markers that show up:
the first one (the white one that looks like a rocket) is the visual representation of where your spacecraft will be closest to your target for a closest approach. the second one (the other white one that looks like a satellite) is the closest your target will be to you visually at your closest approach.
additionally, when in the map view, there is a box on the right that has all of your orbit details. to save "space" (pun intended) in this post, I won't detail each here, but at this Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_elements. everything in the orbit details is described in great detail and then some on this page.
note that if you are just starting out, I wouldn't worry a whole lot about everything in the orbit details box except inclination. your Inclination is critical for things like rendezvous, and so are the rest but the rest are for calculations like delta-v required for something, transfers, etc. Hope this helped, and happy flying.
@KitKart. your closest approach is never guaranteed to be at apoapsis. The closest approach calculator determines your closest approach in a given time window (I have no idea how long that time window is), so the point where your spacecraft is closest to your target will be your closest approach. I've had orbits where my apoapsis was so high that I the only time I was able to get close was at my periapsis, or a whole day in front of me.
5.5 years agoYou can resize your slider sizes by changing the UI size though settings, but that still doesn't solve the immovability issue.
+1 5.5 years ago@lordverminaard. That's great to hear. Once you get the hang of rendezvous, venturing further into space will be no more difficult. If precision is a big factor, Wikipedia has a good article on calculating the proper phase angle from when you are already in space to rendezvous. link here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_phasing. the article isn't specific to rendezvous, but everything mentioned in the article has an application in orbital rendezvous. don't be intimidated by the math in the article, it's just plugging in the proper variables in the equations (I did a whole presentation on the topic of orbital rendezvous when I was in high school by going into the math, and a few people understood it, so I know it can be understood by people with at least high school education). happy flying.
+2 5.5 years agoyou can look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ListofUnitedStatesrockets for a list of American made rockets, in which I am sure you can find something to make. you could try the Delta III possibly.
5.5 years ago@UmbyTheZombeonYT, I agree. light clouds and wind at the least would be nice.
5.5 years agoit would be incredible if Jundroo implement this into simple rockets. I wouldn't even complain if they added just simple clouds covering each planet.
5.5 years agoFrom my current limited knowledge in space logistics, the most "efficient" way of planning a rendezvous is to a satellite is by waiting until your target is in a good position, and there are ways of determining this optimal position for a given target, but I don't know how at the moment. But, because it's the most efficient means does not mean it's the only way. I typically wait until my target is around 15 to 20 from vertical until I launch when the target is in roughly a100 km orbit, and design my spacecraft with extra fuel on board to compensate for any extra delta-v I have to expend to rendezvous my orbit. For a more complete guide on how to rendezvous, I recommend Scott Manley's "Orbital Rendezvous And Docking Tutorial" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHkY3FusJIQ. In this video, he details how to "catch up," or "slow down" relative to your target for getting a close rendezvous.
+1 5.5 years agoOn your other question (about the burn gizmo, delta-v, etc), the burn gizmo is a tool that allows you to plan and execute burns. The green pull things ( I have no idea what they would actually be called) are to used to change your velocity prograde and retrograde (in your planned burn, they add, or subtract velocity to your orbit). The red ones are for changing your inclination (the angle your orbit rises/ falls relative to the equator). The blue ones change your velocity in the normal (outward) or anti-normal (inward) direction (these are very useful to use, but I don't have enough room to detail what this means. for more information these, you will have to consult YouTube or Wikipedia for that). Delta-v is the more scientific of saying the maximum speed that your spacecraft can propel you to or the required change in velocity needed to perform a maneuver. It depends on the situation which one you use, but it's pretty obvious most of the time which one it's referring to.
Other terms you might want to know: (I listed these just in case you don't know them, and not to insult your intelligence, I simply listed these here because I have no idea if you know these critical terms for orbital mechanics):
apoapsis: highest point in your orbit
periapsis: lowest point in your orbit
right ascension *(aka, longitude of the ascending node): the angle from a reference direction (typically the vernal point. )
*argument of periapsis: the angle that you orbit's periapsis is measured when measured from the ascending node (note that this is not relative to the equato
I found the sound design to superb. I always enjoy going to the moon because I love the Luna motif that always plays with its somber, and lonely, but beautiful tones so fitting for a moon. I can remember getting chills when I first opened up the game because of the song that played, and the 16th note rhythm that occasionally plays that makes the song that's playing sound like an entirely different song, while also encouraging me to push on through my frustrations. I only have two complaints with the music and sound design: one, that there aren't different songs for Urados and Tydos. I would love to hear the song that would have been played around them. that would have been a reward enough for me when I finally got into their sphere of influence. Second, that most of the sound effects (especially the rcs thrusters) are on a loop that you can clearly hear when it repeats. This isn't to say I have a problem with the looping tracks (that's how I listen to my music), it's that you can clearly hear the beginning and end of the loop even though it's supposed to sound continuous.
5.5 years agoI have this same issue. I made my RCS nozzles equidistant from the center of mass, and nothing (in terms of rotation. translation was just fine). I noticed though that the rotation mode of the RCS worked fine when the nozzles weren't equidistant from the center of mass, i.e. the rcs was only at the top bit of my spacecraft, and I think that is where this issue lies. I think the game doesn't know how to induce a rotation when everything is equally spaced from the center of mass (I could, of course, be horribly wrong in this assumption in which case it would be neat to know what actually causes this problem).
5.5 years agoThank you for this wonderful creation.
+1 5.5 years ago@corsair013, glad to help.
5.5 years agoaww, but that takes the fun away from it :) If there is no tutorial on how to do this ever put in place, here is a video on how to "match orbits" (aka rendezvous) and dock made by Scott Manley (it's for KSP, but the orbital mechanics part of it is still applies). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHkY3FusJIQ. I sincerely hope this helps and that I didn't misunderstand what you said. I agree though, the developers should add a rendezvous tutorial somehow for those less knowledgeable on the topic of space travel. My first exposure to rendezvous was in the original SimpleRockets, so because there was no tutorial on the topic and before I started to look up how to actually rendezvous, I was intentionally launching my orbits in the opposite direction to the spacecraft I was trying to rendezvous with thinking that I could reverse my direction if I could only get close enough (I was a lot younger then).
+2 5.5 years agoTruth be told, when I play space simulators like KSP, and SimpleRockets, I never really worry getting withing 1 km of my target. although it is an ideal, I typically get within 5 to 6 km and make my way to the spacecraft. It's a little more expensive in fuel, but it a space simulator where money is no obstacle and you are literally creating the thing you are sending up to dock with (you can incorporate the minute amount of extra fuel into your craft's fuel budget).
@Caveman999, to be honest, I don't know how much of this was a bug. the rocket I used was massive, and maybe (I'm just guessing here. I have no idea) the game didn't have enough time to determine that the command pod should have exploded with the rest of the spacecraft. bare in mind that I was accelerated to 15,000 m/s instantly. also, thanks for the info on adding pictures to posts.
5.5 years ago@Caveman999 I sincerely hope so. This game would be reduced to nothing more to another boring simulator, which I suppose it would be even with fun easter eggs, but to my understanding, the point of this game is to build your own spacecraft to test and have fun with it. that goal can't be accomplished if there is nothing to test or play on.
5.5 years ago@Caveman999 granted (referring to the original post you tagged me in), but that still is only one. in simpleplanes, the island "easter eggs" (though I know they aren't by definition) were all fun to go to and had interesting things to do. you first had to discover the island, then find discoverable locations on said island, and none of them were the same. The reason I bring this up is because locations like these scattered across the solar system would be considered easter eggs given the size of the world, and would probably be fun to find as well as play around with.
5.5 years agoTo say the least, I hope there are intentions of adding interesting locations and things to do at each planet. What is the point of building a spaceship other than to say that it went to a place? I understand that ksp suffers from a similar problem and people still enjoy it, but it also 7 different and unique locations each with interesting things spread around the place (though sparsely).
+1 5.5 years ago@PriyanshuRoy yay. I hope others find this post so there will be other contenders.
5.5 years agohere's my rocket I made for the SR2 weekly challenge I:
5.5 years agothe unnecessarily huge heavy hauler gen. 1 (UHHG): https://www.simplerockets.com/c/gHm3G1/unnecessarily-huge-heavy-hauler-Gen-1
a few specs
Price: $25,789
total delta-v: 9,742 m/s
8 total stages, with 12 engines in total.
I made this for a returnable mission to the moon, but I was able to land on Cylero when I was just screwing around. I know I can do better on the delta-v, but it is what it is right now. I'll probably post another better rocket later. the proof my lunar landing is on my post of the SR@ weekly challenge I post by bmcclory (link to the post https://www.simplerockets.com/Forums/View/3060/SR2-Weekly-Challenge-I)
N O I C E
5.5 years ago@PriyanshuRoy thanks
5.5 years agohow about an artificial planet the size of a small moon orbiting close to the sun that would have served as some power station or sorts to an ancient civilization.
+1 5.5 years agoOr how about a geosynchronous moon to an inner planet at an obscure inclination. I haven't seen that done in a space simulator before.
"viva la revolution!!!!!!!"
5.5 years agoone thing that would serve this simulator well would be something along the lines of the docking port alignment indicator mod for KSP. I have never used the normal method of docking in KSP after installing that mod because I gave you so much more information in a more concise manner. That would be something incredible to see implemented in this game.
5.5 years ago@jacksawild ok, thanks for the info.
5.5 years agoafter digging around, I found what I believe to be the planets' radii in the file location \AppData\LocalLow\Jundroo\SimpleRockets 2\UserData\SolarSystems_default_
from there I found the planets' radii, orbits, atmospheric information (although no height of the atmosphere, but I tested that height to be about 60k up thanks to the "you can't timewarp in atmosphere")
here is some of the information on droo for one:
surface gravity: 9.798
radius: 1,274,200 meters
mass: you have to calculate this one, but it's 2.383561897×10^23
I retrieved this from https://hypertextbook.com/facts/2002/SamanthaDong2.shtml if I made a mistake in my math here.
5.5 years agohere is a link to a graph I made in desmos to help calculate this https://www.desmos.com/calculator/wmh0dhdu57
I haven't found any in game.
5.5 years agolol
+1 5.5 years ago@Tully2001 on the upside though, at least he reviewed it.
5.5 years agoI hope that the launch pad, and the space center in general, is completely destructible.
5.8 years agocall it "Fartiper"
+1 5.9 years ago