File talk:KerbinDeltaVMap.png

Out of date?

The estimates on this chart seem very much off. I'm not sure if they are out of date, or just wrong. Could someone please update them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruedii (talk • contribs)

The old image had an distinction between transfer and escape orbit, while the new one has an intercept value. — xZise [talk] 12:42, 20 July 2013 (CDT)

I'm not just referring to transfer and escape orbits, but also to all the values in general. Some are significantly low, some are significantly high. They still are within reasonable estimate (+/-20%), It's just the precision well exceeds the accuracy. We may want to edit the graph to specify a range.--Ruedii (talk) 19:10, 20 July 2013 (CDT)

You can edit the file and fix the values when you know them. The vector graphic like link is https://docs.google.com/drawings/d/1bl5tXZSHBTUq8__26ltCixciDnVAwIYxQmC-8J_lVVA/edit — xZise [talk] 03:54, 21 July 2013 (CDT)

I'll also save it to the wiki in both PNG and SVG format once I'm done. I'm seriously thinking a range would be easiest to read as, I don't think all users can understand a variance such as +/-20% We should try to get the values at least narrowed to a +/-20% if not +/-10. I don't think narrowing to more accurate than +/-10% is possible because not all burns aren't that exact. Craft design can easily create such variance by decreasing the accuracy of burn timing.--Ruedii (talk) 15:35, 21 July 2013 (CDT)

Kerbin low orbit seems really 400-500 m/s more than required. Even if you add a safety margin of 200 m/s, it's too much and makes you construct unnecessarily huge rockets (I tested Kerbin to LKO with Mechjeb and downscaled a rocket from 210 tons to 170). --Kulebron (talk) 15:27, 18 September 2013 (CDT)

Footnotes

I might suggest that some footnotes be added to this graphic like this real world version has: http://i.imgur.com/SqdzxzF.png. I'm assuming that the same assumptions to the calculations apply. Cheers! Eevenson (talk)