> This initial configuration also includes J2 for the Sun, the planets, the Moon, and Vesta, so the resulting effects are felt (precession of Earth orbits, the possibility of heliosynchronous orbits, etc.).
Wow <3. I though the mod only did n-body physics, but it seems it goes beyond that. Thanks!
The text at the last image doesn't seem right, I think the stripes are stars and the little dots are geostationary satellites.
If the photographer took a fixed long exposure the earth would rotate and the stars would move against the sky, but because the satellites are in a geostationary orbit they move with the earth's rotation so it looks like they don't move at all.
Spy satellites aren't geostationary, they're on a polar orbit. There's a bunch of them staggered out to allow photos of anywhere within some max time interval.
Not necessarily, the Molniya orbit is a thing. (Most wars these days are fought at low latitude, though, so this orbital arrangement has cone out of fashion, except to supply TV signal to Siberia.)
TIL - The Tundra (and Molniya) orbits are really interesting highly eccentric geosync (demigeosync) orbits that spend most of their time at high inclination perigee to allow clear line of sight transmission above 1 (or 2 locations) on Earth. This is useful since geostationary satellites are low angle at high latitudes and more difficult to launch. They are almost always at 63 degrees to avoid orbit perturbation due to gravitational anomalies, but still have to pass through the Van Allen radiation belts 2 (or 4) times per day.
If you go to http://stuffin.space and filter for the word "Molniya" you still get a beautiful shape out of it. It'll be a while before they all come down.
Ok. I guess a time lapsed photo should show polar orbit sats as long streaks on the y axis and stars as short streaks on the x axis and geostationary sats as bright dots.
But with a motorized equatorial mount, the stars would stay in the same positions. Nonetheless, I came to the same conclusion that you did because there should be more stars than satellites and the stars should be brighter (by far) than the satellites.
You've both zoomed out in your browsers. Press CTRL+ a few times until you get back to 100%. Article takes up half the screen for me in Chrome+FF, 100%zoom @ 1440p.
No I haven't. Standard 1080p display, multiple machines, multiple browsers (Safari, Firefox & Chrome.) On all I get the same thing, the article is taking up barely a third of the page.
I don't really know, I haven't seriously used unstable. That being said, I like testing because the packages are generally new enough for my purposes but they've also had more vetting, so I don't have to worry about a broken system as much.
