Difference between revisions of "User talk:Featherwinglove"
From Kerbal Space Program Wiki
(→Reverting of the KEO introduction) |
(→Reverting of the KEO introduction: answered xZise; I'm a bit upset.) |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
:::"A spacecraft on this orbit will stay in the sky above a constant longitude, making it easy to track a satellite and contact to them." contains bad grammar, and the rest of the intro sounded tentative, like you either didn't understand English, didn't understand astrodynamics, or both. It didn't sound like it had been written by someone who knew what they were talking about and had actually run the numbers and flown it in the game. My next challenge is to see how close I get to KEO with my current generation of spacecraft that use nothing but RT-10s and Sepratrons for propulsion. [[User:Featherwinglove|Featherwinglove]] ([[User talk:Featherwinglove|talk]]) 14:58, 27 July 2013 (CDT) | :::"A spacecraft on this orbit will stay in the sky above a constant longitude, making it easy to track a satellite and contact to them." contains bad grammar, and the rest of the intro sounded tentative, like you either didn't understand English, didn't understand astrodynamics, or both. It didn't sound like it had been written by someone who knew what they were talking about and had actually run the numbers and flown it in the game. My next challenge is to see how close I get to KEO with my current generation of spacecraft that use nothing but RT-10s and Sepratrons for propulsion. [[User:Featherwinglove|Featherwinglove]] ([[User talk:Featherwinglove|talk]]) 14:58, 27 July 2013 (CDT) | ||
::::Okay granted they only stay on the same longitude, when they are stationary. If not they form an eight. To fix my grammar you simply could do so, but afaik the revert where to a worse state: There was this speculation thing, Clark orbit (wtf?), nothing about the difference between synchronous/stationary. Of course that inclination change at apoapsis was correct but at least I only questioned and not deleted it. Btw I'm neither English/American nor Astrophysicist. — [[User:XZise|xZise]] <small>[[[User talk:XZise|talk]]]</small> 15:14, 27 July 2013 (CDT) | ::::Okay granted they only stay on the same longitude, when they are stationary. If not they form an eight. To fix my grammar you simply could do so, but afaik the revert where to a worse state: There was this speculation thing, Clark orbit (wtf?), nothing about the difference between synchronous/stationary. Of course that inclination change at apoapsis was correct but at least I only questioned and not deleted it. Btw I'm neither English/American nor Astrophysicist. — [[User:XZise|xZise]] <small>[[[User talk:XZise|talk]]]</small> 15:14, 27 July 2013 (CDT) | ||
| + | :::::Why did you vandalize my work? Then you come onto my talk page, blow a gasket, and sign off by acknowledging that you really don't have the qualifications to do anything with the KEO page? How am I supposed to feel about that? If that "I'm an admin/sysop" I find on your user page is all that matters, perhaps I should just cut my losses now and start pretending that I never purchased KSP (I'm already pretty close to doing that after the way Squad has treated my suggestions on the forums.) Feel free to ask, and of course if something seems inappropriately "in-character" (what does that mean and why is it such a crime? :/) you can go ahead and remove or change it... But please trust that I know what I'm talking about when it comes to the physics and the maneuvers, otherwise I wouldn't have started the page. Regarding the Clarke Orbit, according to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_C._Clarke Wikipedia's page on Arthur C. Clarke], the International Astronomical Union named GEO in his honor. It's hard to get more official than that! In light of all this screwiness, I'm not going to make any more contributions to this Wiki until you explicitly tell me that it is safe to do so. (Kinda sad: I was giving some serious thought to updating the parts pages.) [[User:Featherwinglove|Featherwinglove]] ([[User talk:Featherwinglove|talk]]) 15:49, 27 July 2013 (CDT) | ||
::::And I preferred KSO over KEO, because KEO sounded like the Kerbin-equivalent of LEO. — [[User:XZise|xZise]] <small>[[[User talk:XZise|talk]]]</small> 15:15, 27 July 2013 (CDT) | ::::And I preferred KSO over KEO, because KEO sounded like the Kerbin-equivalent of LEO. — [[User:XZise|xZise]] <small>[[[User talk:XZise|talk]]]</small> 15:15, 27 July 2013 (CDT) | ||
| + | :::::Low Kerbin Orbit (LKO) is the Kerbin equivalent of LEO. (I prefer LEO to stand for Low ''Energy'' Orbit so it is the same over all bodies and not just Earth. Apparently that's just me.) [[User:Featherwinglove|Featherwinglove]] ([[User talk:Featherwinglove|talk]]) 15:49, 27 July 2013 (CDT) | ||
| + | |||
::::So my current plan for KEO is: Replace it with the text from [[User:XZise/synch]] (I only changed the introduction and a bit in the chapters) and then move it to [[stationary orbit]] and add a redirect from [[synchronous orbit]] to stationary orbit. That way we also cover all stationary and synchronous orbits. — [[User:XZise|xZise]] <small>[[[User talk:XZise|talk]]]</small> 15:37, 27 July 2013 (CDT) | ::::So my current plan for KEO is: Replace it with the text from [[User:XZise/synch]] (I only changed the introduction and a bit in the chapters) and then move it to [[stationary orbit]] and add a redirect from [[synchronous orbit]] to stationary orbit. That way we also cover all stationary and synchronous orbits. — [[User:XZise|xZise]] <small>[[[User talk:XZise|talk]]]</small> 15:37, 27 July 2013 (CDT) | ||
| + | :::::Okay, I give up. On reading this, I rushed to get a screenshot of the maneuver table that's the reason I kept coming back to the KEO page... actually, that table is the main reason I published the KEO page in the first place... I thought maybe I wouldn't be the only player who'd want to have that information handy while fiddling around in the VAB. [[User:Featherwinglove|Featherwinglove]] ([[User talk:Featherwinglove|talk]]) 15:49, 27 July 2013 (CDT) | ||
Revision as of 20:49, 27 July 2013
Reverting of the KEO introduction
Hi, I noticed that you reverted the introduction of the KEO article back to an older state. I left a statement about it on the article's talk page, could you please explain the reason for the edit there? --dgelessus (talk · contribs) 12:05, 27 July 2013 (CDT)
- Sorry about the broken promise, apparently I either didn't save the discussion page, or the save didn't take (maybe I didn't notice the "This is only a preview" before logging out or something like that.) Featherwinglove (talk) 14:08, 27 July 2013 (CDT)
- Maybe you can rewrite it, as I still have no idea what was wrong with my changes. — xZise [talk] 14:31, 27 July 2013 (CDT)
- "A spacecraft on this orbit will stay in the sky above a constant longitude, making it easy to track a satellite and contact to them." contains bad grammar, and the rest of the intro sounded tentative, like you either didn't understand English, didn't understand astrodynamics, or both. It didn't sound like it had been written by someone who knew what they were talking about and had actually run the numbers and flown it in the game. My next challenge is to see how close I get to KEO with my current generation of spacecraft that use nothing but RT-10s and Sepratrons for propulsion. Featherwinglove (talk) 14:58, 27 July 2013 (CDT)
- Okay granted they only stay on the same longitude, when they are stationary. If not they form an eight. To fix my grammar you simply could do so, but afaik the revert where to a worse state: There was this speculation thing, Clark orbit (wtf?), nothing about the difference between synchronous/stationary. Of course that inclination change at apoapsis was correct but at least I only questioned and not deleted it. Btw I'm neither English/American nor Astrophysicist. — xZise [talk] 15:14, 27 July 2013 (CDT)
- Why did you vandalize my work? Then you come onto my talk page, blow a gasket, and sign off by acknowledging that you really don't have the qualifications to do anything with the KEO page? How am I supposed to feel about that? If that "I'm an admin/sysop" I find on your user page is all that matters, perhaps I should just cut my losses now and start pretending that I never purchased KSP (I'm already pretty close to doing that after the way Squad has treated my suggestions on the forums.) Feel free to ask, and of course if something seems inappropriately "in-character" (what does that mean and why is it such a crime? :/) you can go ahead and remove or change it... But please trust that I know what I'm talking about when it comes to the physics and the maneuvers, otherwise I wouldn't have started the page. Regarding the Clarke Orbit, according to Wikipedia's page on Arthur C. Clarke, the International Astronomical Union named GEO in his honor. It's hard to get more official than that! In light of all this screwiness, I'm not going to make any more contributions to this Wiki until you explicitly tell me that it is safe to do so. (Kinda sad: I was giving some serious thought to updating the parts pages.) Featherwinglove (talk) 15:49, 27 July 2013 (CDT)
- And I preferred KSO over KEO, because KEO sounded like the Kerbin-equivalent of LEO. — xZise [talk] 15:15, 27 July 2013 (CDT)
- Low Kerbin Orbit (LKO) is the Kerbin equivalent of LEO. (I prefer LEO to stand for Low Energy Orbit so it is the same over all bodies and not just Earth. Apparently that's just me.) Featherwinglove (talk) 15:49, 27 July 2013 (CDT)
- Okay granted they only stay on the same longitude, when they are stationary. If not they form an eight. To fix my grammar you simply could do so, but afaik the revert where to a worse state: There was this speculation thing, Clark orbit (wtf?), nothing about the difference between synchronous/stationary. Of course that inclination change at apoapsis was correct but at least I only questioned and not deleted it. Btw I'm neither English/American nor Astrophysicist. — xZise [talk] 15:14, 27 July 2013 (CDT)
- "A spacecraft on this orbit will stay in the sky above a constant longitude, making it easy to track a satellite and contact to them." contains bad grammar, and the rest of the intro sounded tentative, like you either didn't understand English, didn't understand astrodynamics, or both. It didn't sound like it had been written by someone who knew what they were talking about and had actually run the numbers and flown it in the game. My next challenge is to see how close I get to KEO with my current generation of spacecraft that use nothing but RT-10s and Sepratrons for propulsion. Featherwinglove (talk) 14:58, 27 July 2013 (CDT)
- Maybe you can rewrite it, as I still have no idea what was wrong with my changes. — xZise [talk] 14:31, 27 July 2013 (CDT)
- So my current plan for KEO is: Replace it with the text from User:XZise/synch (I only changed the introduction and a bit in the chapters) and then move it to stationary orbit and add a redirect from synchronous orbit to stationary orbit. That way we also cover all stationary and synchronous orbits. — xZise [talk] 15:37, 27 July 2013 (CDT)
- Okay, I give up. On reading this, I rushed to get a screenshot of the maneuver table that's the reason I kept coming back to the KEO page... actually, that table is the main reason I published the KEO page in the first place... I thought maybe I wouldn't be the only player who'd want to have that information handy while fiddling around in the VAB. Featherwinglove (talk) 15:49, 27 July 2013 (CDT)
- So my current plan for KEO is: Replace it with the text from User:XZise/synch (I only changed the introduction and a bit in the chapters) and then move it to stationary orbit and add a redirect from synchronous orbit to stationary orbit. That way we also cover all stationary and synchronous orbits. — xZise [talk] 15:37, 27 July 2013 (CDT)
