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 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)
- 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
retcon last statement: removing "observation of Ike"
Atmosphere scale height
What is the source for the values for scale height for this and other planets? It's given here as 5700 metres, but that matches the data in the table pretty badly at most altitudes (reasonably close around 10km it seems). The page does note that since v1.0 the scale height varies with altitude, so perhaps (if scale heights aren't simply removed) the region where the curve matches the stated scale height should be made clear? I guess perhaps the scale height as a concept predates the v1.0 change, so maybe there's a good case for just removing it entirely. Neilski (talk) 19:00, 5 January 2019 (UTC)