Difference between revisions of "User talk:Featherwinglove"

From Kerbal Space Program Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Reverting of the KEO introduction)
(re xZise)
Line 4: Line 4:
 
: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.) [[User:Featherwinglove|Featherwinglove]] ([[User talk:Featherwinglove|talk]]) 14:08, 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.) [[User:Featherwinglove|Featherwinglove]] ([[User talk: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. — [[User:XZise|xZise]] <small>&#91;[[User talk:XZise|talk]]&#93;</small> 14:31, 27 July 2013 (CDT)
 
::Maybe you can rewrite it, as I still have no idea what was wrong with my changes. — [[User:XZise|xZise]] <small>&#91;[[User talk:XZise|talk]]&#93;</small> 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.

Revision as of 19:58, 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.