Talk:Duna

Refrence

I did the stationary calculation on this site, imputing the mass of the planet, and trial and error on the orbital radi. It is untested, so it might be wrong. (3185,5 km orbit gave the same ammount of seconds the plant day is, minus the radi' of the planet). It seems that the dunasync orbit is exactly the same as kerbins :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djnekkid (talk • contribs)

Duna Gravity borked.

Someone, fix the Gravitational Parameter!

It's throwing all my calculations out XD Kahlzun (talk) 23:36, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

It looks like it was listed in km²/s³, even though the shown units are m²/s³? It's fixed now. UmbralRaptor (talk) 05:57, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

infobox

it appears like the infobox is broken. it shows weird values for a lot of parameters. can somebody please fix this? Koeopschoenen (talk) 04:24, 24 April 2014 (CDT)

Thank you, all bodies with atmospheres had this problem, except Kerbin. — xZise [talk] 05:22, 24 April 2014 (CDT)

Is this an Easter Egg?

When you take a surface sample of Duna from it's midlands, it says this: Unable to satisfy your Curiosity, you attempt to drill in the rock with your tool. You're thinking it would be a lot easier if you had some kind of pulsating drill thing on a robotic arm.

Notice how curiosity is capitalized? I think it means the rover. And the pulsating drill thing on a robotic arm also references to the rover? -------Mushroomian, 935 AM ET, 3/8/2015

Considering there is already the mast of Curiosity seen. There is actually a typo and it's “Curiousity” but I also think they mean the rover. If you want to add it, use list of easter eggs. — xZise [talk] 09:39, 9 March 2015 (CDT)

Oh and I'd appreciate if you could sign using four tildes (usually preceded by two dashes) like --~~~~. This ensures that it's formatted the same way (it might be obvious to you that 3/8/2015 is for you in the past and not in the future but that is not universally true). — xZise [talk] 09:59, 9 March 2015 (CDT)

Observation of Ike

That large image and section is unneeded. No other planets, even the ones with tidally locked moons, have an "observing moon" section, and it generally adds nothing to the article. I have removed it. Mr. Spink ^{talk★contribs} 16:16, 18 March 2016 (UTC)