Difference between revisions of "Talk:Cheat sheet"

Latest revision as of 17:28, 8 March 2014

Tutorial:Advanced Rocket Design?

Doesn't Tutorial:Advanced Rocket Design cover this already? — xZise [talk] 11:20, 25 June 2013 (CDT)

This is supposed to be a cheat sheet where everything is described shortly for quick reference. That is not currently the case though and would require some shortening. BTW, I'm <math>ing the formulas at the moment. --dgelessus ^{(talk · logs)} 11:53, 25 June 2013 (CDT)

I've now radically shortened the article. Obviously lots of information was removed, but most of it were just explanations, which really go under tutorials. It should now be more of a cheat sheet. --dgelessus ^{(talk · logs)} 10:09, 28 June 2013 (CDT)

Examples

We need an example section to help show people how to find values on their own. I recommend each equation have at least one working example. After all, the cheat sheet is in the tutorials section itself. Inigmatus (talk) 12:33, 3 July 2013 (CDT)

Why are the examples below all formulas? If I want to know how TWR works, I have to search twice. This way you can also save to describe the same formula twice too. And is there any use of the “simplyfied” versions of the formulas? — xZise [talk] 16:13, 3 July 2013 (CDT)

The simplified versions are used to translate the equation into plaintext format which is easier to copy and paste. The plaintext format is also the format used to present the following examples. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inigmatus (talk • contribs)

PS: Somehow someone else's stuff landed in my textbox. Help! --dgelessus ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:22, 3 July 2013 (CDT)

What I was actually going to say:

If this should be a cheat sheet, then examples do not belong here. A cheat sheet should be quick reference material that you could print out on a single piece of paper for quick and easy reference. Hence the name. If this is about explaining the formulas though, this should rather go under "Tutorial: Spaceflight Mathematics" or something. --dgelessus ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:25, 3 July 2013 (CDT)

I changed the TWR a bit:

• Moved the example from below directly to this section (although that I agree that detailed explainations should be in a tutorial/seperate article. It could be linked from here)
• I added an explanation what does what mean.
• I dropped the “simplified“ versions for now as they are simply ugly and hard to read. Granted it is easier to copy them.

And to scientific sidenotes:

1. SI-units aren't uppercase (only their abbreviations if the source of the name is from a person: N(ewton), J(oule))
2. You have to be careful where the gravity is g and g₀, because the later is a constant (9.81 or 9.82 ms⁻²) while the first is depending on your location. As this is a cheat sheet and not a getting starting tutorial it is important (!) that the TWR not only changes with the mass or thrust but also with the local gravity: A rocket may start on the Mun but with the same configuration not on Kerbin, because the TWR on the Mun is only 1/6th.

@Dgelessus about your “landed in my textbox” → Inigmatus posted before you without signing and I guess the changes (s)he made appeared on edit as well (but I guess “show changes” would show you that the new text isn't a change in your edit). — xZise [talk] 16:37, 3 July 2013 (CDT)

For the Δv Example problem, I believe the solution shown is in error. I used both my own math and calculator and two seperate online Δv calculators, one Kerbal specific and the other a generic Δv calculator and came with the same solution as my own math. The solution the example reached was "Δv = ln ( 23 Tons / 15 Tons ) × 120 seconds Isp × 9.81m/s = Total Δv of 1803.2 m/s2" whereas the math I have done and the calculators used all have a Δv of approx. 503 m/s. Request a confirmation of correct calculations on the page or if I am just missing something, as these calculations are still new to me. Also of note, this is the first time I have ever contributed to any wiki, so pardon any etiquette mistakes.--Jedensuscg (talk) 00:51, 27 July 2013 (CDT)

It appears to be a math error on the example writer's part. Also, they b0rked the units. Fixed. UmbralRaptor (talk) 02:45, 27 July 2013 (CDT)