Jiraiyah Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 3 minutes ago, Galileo said: while yall are doing the maths, does anyone know how to make a dV map? This may help : The first part of the calculation can be used to get the delta V needed for transferring from parking orbit (say 80Km) to the orbit of target planet (but i'm not sure how well it would work between planetary) but for circularization etc, no idea Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OhioBob Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 11 minutes ago, Galileo said: while yall are doing the maths, does anyone know how to make a dV map? I've never made a dV map, but I'm sure I can figure one out. Let me work on that. I'm not sure I can make it look pretty, but I can certainly compute the numbers. We may need somebody else's input to make it look spiffy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JadeOfMaar Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 (edited) 17 minutes ago, Galileo said: while yall are doing the maths, does anyone know how to make a dV map? 1 minute ago, OhioBob said: I've never made a dV map, but I'm sure I can figure one out. Let me work on that. I'm not sure I can make it look pretty, but I can certainly compute the numbers. We may need somebody else's input to make it look spiffy. I can produce the graphic part. It'll be easy. The hard part is arranging for test craft (and dV readout mods) to measure launch > orbit dV with. Especially from Catullus and Tellumo. Edited October 31, 2016 by JadeOfMaar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jiraiyah Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 give me the numbers and i will see what i can do for the beauty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JadeOfMaar Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 (edited) 7 hours ago, Poodmund said: If you ever need help in figuring out KSPedia entries, I did the ones for OPM quite a few months back and have the templates that I used in Unity if its any help... if you want to mimic the stock-a-like feel. I'll keep that in mind. It'll be quite welcome. I haven't opened KSPedia in a long time so I can't remember how those things look to readily decide if I want to make the GPP wiki stockalike. But I have decided I may likely omit the skybox I'm using in my wiki images as it may make the overall look of the thing too eccentric. On that subject, @jandcando released v4 of the stock planet wiki. They have a cool sidebar now. http://imgur.com/a/H3RdP Edited October 31, 2016 by JadeOfMaar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jiraiyah Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 3 minutes ago, JadeOfMaar said: I'll keep that in mind. I haven't opened KSPedia in a long time so I can't remember how those things look to readily decide if I want to make the GPP wiki stockalike. But I have decided I may likely omit the skybox I'm using in my wiki images as it may make the overall look of the thing too eccentric. actually something like this should be quite easy, take a look : Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OhioBob Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 It's my understanding that most of the dV maps show minimum values. Is that what we want to do here as well, or would it be better to show median values? I usually don't use dV maps, I typically just keep notes of my own dV values that I obtain either by computation or experimentation. In my notes I usually like to keep track of a range from best case to worst case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jiraiyah Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 (edited) 5 minutes ago, OhioBob said: It's my understanding that most of the dV maps show minimum values. Is that what we want to do here as well, or would it be better to show median values? I usually don't use dV maps, I typically just keep notes of my own dV values that I obtain either by computation or experimentation. In my notes I usually like to keep track of a range from best case to worst case. well there is a reason those maps use minimum numbers, when you have more delta v than what the map says you need, you can be sure you are almost ok, but median could work too, up to you guys, after all, a map of delta v is just a guide for noobs like me to see if they will crash or fail or not something i would like to see in the map i sent is separation of geosync orbit in two sections, delta v needed to get there and delta v needed for circularization, but from the video i sent the link, it should be easy to find it out (you can bet i have the calculator in spread sheet now, but it works from 80Km parking orbit until SOI i think) Edited October 31, 2016 by Jiraiyah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OhioBob Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 (edited) 20 hours ago, Jiraiyah said: well there is a reason those maps use minimum numbers, when you have more delta v than what the map says you need, you can be sure you are almost ok Not really. If the map says you need a minimum of 2000 m/s, that means you could really need 2500 m/s if the conditions are suboptimal. You could add a 10% or 20% margin to the minimum and think you're OK, while in fact you're really screwed. Edited November 1, 2016 by OhioBob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jiraiyah Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 1 minute ago, OhioBob said: Not really. If the map says you need a minimum of 2000 m/s, that means you could really need 2500 m/s if the conditions are suboptimal. You could add a 10% or 20% margin to the minimum and think you're OK, while if fact you're really screwed. true Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JadeOfMaar Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 (edited) @OhioBob I would go with median, but any wise player would know to overengineer (even more?) a bit, just in case. As for my dV measurements I pad the values I get by just a little... Then again I'm not using career mode to test things. @Jiraiyah This map should come ASAP actually, for that exact reason. Thanks for mentioning it. I wonder how I should format this map? It's going to be very tall or very wide, as GPP has twice as many parent planets alone-- forget about moons. Edited October 31, 2016 by JadeOfMaar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jiraiyah Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 Just now, JadeOfMaar said: @OhioBob I would go with median, but any wise player would know to overengineer (even more?) a bit, just in case. As for my dV measurements I pad the values I get by just a little... Then again I'm not using career mode to test things. @Jiraiyah This map should come ASAP actually, for that exact reason. Thanks for mentioning it. well, i'm still a bit confused, using the hohman formula from the video i get this : Where as that map says the delta v needed for geostationary of kerbin is 1115 !!!! not sure why. In what i have V1 is delta V to get there and V2 is for circularization ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galileo Posted October 31, 2016 Author Share Posted October 31, 2016 @OhioBob @JadeOfMaar @Jiraiyah you guys rock! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jiraiyah Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 by the way if anyone is interested i can send up the sheet when i finished it some what more Just now, Galileo said: @OhioBob @JadeOfMaar @Jiraiyah you guys rock! no sir, in my case, open office rocks, i don't have enough math remembered in my old brain cells to do calculations myself Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OhioBob Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 5 minutes ago, Jiraiyah said: well, i'm still a bit confused, using the hohman formula from the video i get this : Where as that map says the delta v needed for geostationary of kerbin is 1115 !!!! not sure why. In what i have V1 is delta V to get there and V2 is for circularization ! It looks like you're calculating your dV using an apoapsis radius of 2863.3528 km. That's not the radius, it's the altitude. You are transferring from a radius of 680 km to a radius of 3463.3528 km. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JadeOfMaar Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 I ....have no likes to give. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jiraiyah Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 (edited) hmm, corrected that but still some what off ! (only 17 m/s but still why?) Edited October 31, 2016 by Jiraiyah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JadeOfMaar Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 Share your file with Ohiobob. If there's any codefix to do, it'd help him best by enabling him to see into every field that has a formula. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OhioBob Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 1 hour ago, Jiraiyah said: You are the best sir, here we have the updated chart, those cells with green color are all calculated from your formulas Yep, those numbers look good. One small thing, however. It looks like you are still using the rounded off value for Gratian's sidereal period. I recommend that you set Gratian's sidereal period equal to Geminus' sidereal period (they are the same since the two bodies are tidally locked to each another). I also can't tell if you are using Gael's rounded off value or the precise value. If you haven't already done so, I recommend that you set Gael's sidereal period equal to 5.98594847925518 hours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jiraiyah Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 (edited) 2 minutes ago, OhioBob said: Yep, those numbers look good. One small thing, however. It looks like you are still using the rounded off value for Gratian's sidereal period. I recommend that you set Gratian's sidereal period equal to Geminus' sidereal period (they are the same since the two bodies are tidally locked to each another). I also can't tell if you are using Gael's rounded off value or the precise value. If you haven't already done so, I recommend that you set Gael's sidereal period equal to 5.98594847925518 hours. I hope you have open office or libre office, the file is .ods https://www.dropbox.com/s/ixh3gmptxyssn4z/Planet Details.ods?dl=0 look for the sheet called formula to see where did i mess things for that hohman calculation :/ Edited October 31, 2016 by Jiraiyah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OhioBob Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 10 minutes ago, Jiraiyah said: hmm, corrected that but still some what off ! (only 17 m/s but still why?) I haven't watched the video so I don't know why there's a difference. But my calculations agree with your numbers. If there's an error I think it's in the video. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jiraiyah Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 Just now, OhioBob said: I haven't watched the video so I don't know why there's a difference. But my calculations agree with your numbers. If there's an error I think it's in the video. yah the guy in video was not adding up that 600 Km for the target orbit, already fixed it, but every map i see for geosync orbits they say dV is 1115 although it's only 16-17 m/s but still makes me confused Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galileo Posted October 31, 2016 Author Share Posted October 31, 2016 8 minutes ago, Jiraiyah said: yah the guy in video was not adding up that 600 Km for the target orbit, already fixed it, but every map i see for geosync orbits they say dV is 1115 although it's only 16-17 m/s but still makes me confused they probably all went off the video Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jiraiyah Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 Just now, Galileo said: they probably all went off the video well, if they would use the video, they would get even lesser number, but there is a chance that they copied one another because i see even worse numbers here and there on some maps Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OhioBob Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 1 minute ago, Jiraiyah said: yah the guy in video was not adding up that 600 Km for the target orbit, already fixed it, but every map i see for geosync orbits they say dV is 1115 although it's only 16-17 m/s but still makes me confused Part of it could be that they're figuring the transfer from a lower orbit. You used 80 km, but they could have used 70 km (the absolute minimum). In that case I compute 1111 m/s, so I still don't get 1115 m/s. Also in older versions of KSP, Kerbin's sidereal period was 6 hours (rather than it's current solar day), which made the stationary altitude a little higher. But even taking that into account I still compute a value of only 1111.5 m/s. I don't know where 1115 m/s comes from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts