Kerbal Space Program Wiki:Tasks

From Kerbal Space Program Wiki
Revision as of 05:03, 8 March 2015 by Brendan (talk | contribs) (All these subjects are better addressed in Talk:Reaction_engine#Reaction_Engines_which_are_Rocket_Engines_or_not.)
Jump to: navigation, search

This is a list of tasks. Feel free to add something you want to be checked/done and others can then claim those.

To avoid that multiple people work at the same time at the same task you should claim tasks by answering to them. Also answer to a task to remove your claim if you aren't working on it anymore and want others to finish the task.

For saving the place, delete the sequence if the task is finished, and everyone is pleased with the result!

Add a new task


{{TechTree}} - still 0.25 - Moderate difficulty, save game with all nodes appeared tech tree is needed. NWM (talk) 09:08, 7 March 2015 (CST)

Name change in Rockomax Mark 55 Radial Mount Liquid Engine

The name in the description changed in Rockomax Mark 55 Radial Mount Liquid Engine. Please determine in which version that was done and update the related pages (Rockomax Mark 55 Radial Mount Liquid Engine and Eumon Kerman) respectively and maybe create Eugene Kerman (or request a move of Eumon to Eugene Kerman).

(See the comment by User:Brendan in this diff) — xZise [talk] 06:18, 3 March 2015 (CST)

Dynamically calculate orbital periods

The orbital periods of {{Celestial period table}} are currently statically written, but it should be possible via {{Body data}} to get most if not all data on each row dynamically. See also Template talk:Celestial period table#Dynamically calculate. — xZise [talk] 06:18, 3 March 2015 (CST)

Done NWM (talk) 05:24, 5 March 2015 (CST)
Hmm to be honest, it would've been easier when there is just one row template and each body is using it. — xZise [talk] 09:23, 5 March 2015 (CST)
Row templatification is ready! If it is tasty for you delete this sequence! NWM (talk) 21:35, 6 March 2015 (CST)
Thank you. I took the liberty to make it a bit more dynamic (the complete row is now covered). Also {{Body data/Sidereal orbit}} doesn't use a second parameter and automatically determine the parent via the first parameter. I also moved it, because it's only used by that template, and there are already other examples like Science/Row and {{StationaryOrbit/Row}} (though the name of that is not the best and should be Synchronous orbit/row). — xZise [talk] 05:11, 7 March 2015 (CST)
Changed the /row a bit, now links the parent only at Moho. NWM (talk) 09:08, 7 March 2015 (CST)

For .svg mages

Creating the more informative .svg version of some picture:

Make the texts correctable!

For "Orbit_Synchronization_how_to.png" - pictures by stages of the maneuver would be more preferable!

Note that the third image is already a vector graphic. The question is also how you could make it more informative? Maybe make clearer that it's a top down view. — xZise [talk] 09:23, 5 March 2015 (CST)
Making the shape more similar to an air-plane (and not has to explain what it is)...NWM (talk) 17:31, 5 March 2015 (CST)
The text is baked in, and it's a bit plain looking. But the license is Public Domain, so this NASA image can be edited and reused here.
NASA made illustration of roll, pitch, and yaw axes
--Brendan (talk) 19:03, 6 March 2015 (CST)
Yes, yes, something like this, but in .svg for better usability...NWM (talk) 21:35, 6 March 2015 (CST)
On commons is commons:File:Achsen-cessna2.svg which is in German but could be (probably easily because of svg) translated. Alternatively there might be other files in commons:Category:Roll, Pitch and Yaw (just looked at the first row or so). I'm not 100% sure about licensing, but afaik it's must not be PD as we already have non PD files in. — xZise [talk] 05:17, 7 March 2015 (CST)
Perfect! The GNU is under the picture, I am on it. 09:08, 7 March 2015 (CST)

Rocket engine "family photo"

The old "Reaction engine" article is moving to Rocket engine. It's had the same old v0.17 LV-T30 engine image since... long ago. It would be nice to arrange all the non-aspirated engines together on the Launch Pad -- liquid fuel, SRB, RCS, and ion -- and take a "family photo". Maybe with Jeb, if he can manage not to break anything. Currently I'm without a gaming computer, and I was sad to find I don't have the screenshot I'd previously taken. But there are new engines since then anyway! --Brendan (talk) 15:10, 5 March 2015 (CST)

Just a note: Ion engine is not rocket engine.NWM (talk) 17:31, 5 March 2015 (CST)
Looking into it, they satisfy the requirement of using only onboard propellant, but I'd overlooked that rocket engines are jet engines -- they form a high-speed jet of exhaust gases. KSP's ion engines might get a pass, but the Hall-effect thrusters they're modelled on emit ionized xenon gas, but don't form a jet. Fascinating. --Brendan (talk) 18:15, 5 March 2015 (CST)
The definitions changes even by countries. The simple automatic replacing arm is "robot" in Japan, but not in US. And simply, I don't know any country where ion engine (+atom rocket motor) is rocket engine.
PS:read it before link it! NWM (talk) 17:42, 6 March 2015 (CST)
I read it, and like all people, I sometimes miss things. That's why community wikis beat encyclopedias.
Also, I've made a concerted effort to be understanding, despite your repeated hostility. So I'm a bit baffled by the tone implicit in your last comment. I'm interested in working together, not proving personal points. Please keep that in mind. --Brendan (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2015 (CST)
If you wanna work together, and you had noticed what you have missed, explain your idea of solution instead of complaining. So, mutilating the page (and the family photo) for the "rocket engine", or expanding with the jets for the "reaction engines"?NWM (talk) 21:35, 6 March 2015 (CST)
Brendan is not complaining on the comment made at 18:15, 5 March 2015 but instead just saying what the status is. Only at 19:16, 6 March 2015 you could say Brendan complains, but understandably because of comments like “read it before link it” which might not be hostile but sounds so from an outside observer.
But apart from that why don't Hall-effect thrusters don't form a jet? Especially with about 10× the velocity of conventional chemical engines. They are also listed as a type of rocket engine in the Wikipedia article: w:Rocket engine#Electrically powered.
And then is the question about why we would want to separate ion engines from chemical engines? They work exactly the same from a KSP viewpoint and the only difference is the type of fuel. As described in Talk:Reaction engine separating jet engines (the airbreathing ones) make sense as the behave differently (most notably the additional thrust curve and intake air requirement). — xZise [talk] 05:26, 7 March 2015 (CST)
I vote for extending the "reaction engine" with jets (yes, and later even with electric air-propellers and helicopter rotors of the official DLC-s - with notes) creating a "surface independent" (do not rename it!) engines comparison page instead of moving to "rocket engine". Messing due to a stupid definition, and creating an another page even less coherent to the official terms is not a reasonable step for me. NWM (talk) 09:08, 7 March 2015 (CST)
All these subjects are better addressed in Talk:Reaction_engine#Reaction_Engines_which_are_Rocket_Engines_or_not. --Brendan (talk) 23:03, 7 March 2015 (CST)