Solved orbit grows

[wheatley]

Game Version​

2026.8.19.5261

Operating System​

linux

What Happened​

orbit of my satellite grew over time. it appears to be because of the foldable solar planels, because when they are removed the problem no longer occurs

What Was Expected​

orbits would remain stable over time

Reproduction Steps​

1. send a object into orbit with foldable solar panels

Reproduction Rate​

tried it a few times with the panels and it worked every time, and the problem never occurred without them

Additional Info​

 

[Disabled_Abel]

I also have this issue, it happens while time warping and not time warping (Windows 11) it seems like retracting it makes it worse

 

[Kiwi Shark]

I've reproduced this with an additional bit of info: the orbit only changes when the solar panels are exposed to sunlight. On the dark side the test vehicle orbit stays the same, but in the light the apo/periapsis move. Only when the solar panels are deployed though, no change anywhere along the orbit when they are retracted.

 

[Herbal Space Program]

I think I noticed the same thing while aerobraking for a Mars landing. I would do a short retrograde burn from orbit (with panels deployed) to just put my PE on the ground, and then I'd timewarp until I reached the top of the atmosphere only to discover that my PE was no longer on the ground when I stopped!

 

[JPLRepo]

Ok. the sun tracking - drifting orbit is fixed next build. as for aerobraking. That might be a separate bug. But would need new/more information.

 

[Herbal Space Program]

Ok. the sun tracking - drifting orbit is fixed next build. as for aerobraking. That might be a separate bug. But would need new/more information.

To clarify a bit, the orbital drift in my case was occurring before I hit the top of the Mars atmosphere, so I don't think it had anything to do with aerobraking per se. I can also report that when I was trying to re-dock the same Mars lander to the mothership, with the PE of both vessels above 200km, I couldn't manage it in multiple attempts because whatever rendezvous I had set up at the outset always changed a lot by the time I got to the projected rendezvous point. For example, it would show a 600m closest approach right after my rendezvous burn, but when I timewarped to just before the intersect I had set up, the closest approach would be more like 50km. Turning off RCS on both vessels changed nothing, so it definitely didn't have to do with any attitude correction burns changing the orbits. So long story short, I think this is very likely the same bug that OP reported, because it happens fully outside of the atmosphere and with no thrusters active on any craft. In any case, it looks like a new build just dropped, so I'll install it and see if my problem has gone away!

 

[Herbal Space Program]

I just retried my Mars lander orbital rendezvous in the new build (5402) and I still encountered the orbital inflation bug, but only under very specific circumstances. That is to say, when I flew to orbit with my solar panels deployed, everything was fine and my orbit was stable even if I timewarped for days. However, as soon as I tried to retract them my orbit started changing again. I say "tried to retract" because what actually happens when I hit Retract is the panels all turn edge-forward and then don't actually ever fold up, and their right-click PAW permanently shows their state as "retracting", with no subsequent ability to toggle them back to "deployed". Once the orbit is made unstable in this manner, it remains so regardless of timewarp or being focused on a different vessel. Moreover, this happened not just for my lander, but for the orbital mothership as well, with attempted panel retraction immediately inducing the orbital drift, although in that case just one of the four symmetrical panels actually did fold up. Lastly, I should not really call it drift, because as far as I can tell what actually happens is a small, steady prograde impulse that is unrelated to the orientation of the vessel. Anyway, this seems easy enough to work around until there's some kind of actual aerodynamic model to necessitate panel retraction, but unfortunately I don't think this bug can be considered quite dead yet, unless this is just a holdover issue due to the vessels being created in a previous build. I will throw together a brand new vessel this evening and check to see if it still happens with no elements from the last build involved.

 

[Kiwi Shark]

I just retried my Mars lander orbital rendezvous in the new build (5402) and I still encountered the orbital inflation bug, but only under very specific circumstances. That is to say, when I flew to orbit with my solar panels deployed, everything was fine and my orbit was stable even if I timewarped for days. However, as soon as I tried to retract them my orbit started changing again. I say "tried to retract" because what actually happens when I hit Retract is the panels all turn edge-forward and then don't actually ever fold up, and their right-click PAW permanently shows their state as "retracting", with no subsequent ability to toggle them back to "deployed". Once the orbit is made unstable in this manner, it remains so regardless of timewarp or being focused on a different vessel. Moreover, this happened not just for my lander, but for the orbital mothership as well, with attempted panel retraction immediately inducing the orbital drift, although in that case just one of the four symmetrical panels actually did fold up. Lastly, I should not really call it drift, because as far as I can tell what actually happens is a small, steady prograde impulse that is unrelated to the orientation of the vessel. Anyway, this seems easy enough to work around until there's some kind of actual aerodynamic model to necessitate panel retraction, but unfortunately I don't think this bug can be considered quite dead yet, unless this is just a holdover issue due to the vessels being created in a previous build. I will throw together a brand new vessel this evening and check to see if it still happens with no elements from the last build involved.

Do let us know if you reach any more conclusions. But based on the developer suggestion, I recommend starting a new bug report with your specific details. Be sure to link to these original comments! This original report has been handled though and the thread will be marked as Solved.