A post I made about the basics of Delta V and orbits

[SlabGizor117]

Let me know what you think!

http://imgur.com/gallery/Rp40E

Sucks that I'm getting downvoted, though.

[HebaruSan]

I admire your ambition, but people don't go to Imgur for that kind of content. Imgur is for keeping your phone busy during your bowel movements. KSP posts that do well (not front page, but positive upvotes) tend to be screenshots of cool-looking, creative crafts, with as little orbit-talk as possible.

That said, maybe you could make this work if you could boil it down to 2 or 3 simple but interesting animations. E.g., just the gravity turn and why rockets burn horizontal, since that's an often expressed point of confusion from flat Earth types.

[Mikki]

I just gave you a "up", greetings! 
Its well done and informative, nevermind the voting thingy...

Edited January 23, 2017 by Mikki

[SlabGizor117]

I've seen plenty of posts just as involved as mine if not more on the front page..  It's annoying.  

[DerekL1963]

Reasons you're getting downvoted because a) the title is misspelled, b) you insult the readers in your first caption, c) it's about the game, not real life.  (You refer way, way too much to the game for it to be otherwise.  Hint: There's no maneuver nodes in real life.)  Really, despite your protestations otherwise, it's a pretty pedestrian game tutorial.

[Slam_Jones]

As stated above, I think the usage of misspelled words (like "werk" and "git learned") makes it seem... not intelligent.  Makes me worry about the total accuracy of the rest of the write-up.

Also, if you're getting re-entry flames on the way out, then you are going too fast too low, and losing a significant portion of dv to drag.  Try keeping your vertical speed below 400m/s and keep your TWR at 1.6 or lower.

This is just opinion here, but a maneuver node is absolutely not necessary for stabilizing orbit.  Just makes sure you're on the cusp of the AP (vertical speed should stay very close to 0m/s during the burn... the closer the better) and burn until your PE is above 70km.  A bit simpler than working with maneuver nodes too, IMO!

Edited January 23, 2017 by Slam_Jones

[suicidejunkie]

I had never even thought about making a maneuver node for entering orbit.  Even the non-sassy engineers can handle "pointy end forward, then go faster until you're safe".

Any craft that has enough non-panicking time during the launch to make a node doesn't need it...

[SlabGizor117]

 

2 hours ago, DerekL1963 said:

Reasons you're getting downvoted because a) the title is misspelled, b) you insult the readers in your first caption, c) it's about the game, not real life.  (You refer way, way too much to the game for it to be otherwise.  Hint: There's no maneuver nodes in real life.)  Really, despite your protestations otherwise, it's a pretty pedestrian game tutorial.

A.  The title is a joke, B.  That's not an insult,  C.  It's most definitely about real life because I'm using the game to explain how real life rockets work.  What a horrible person I am for using a maneuver node to explain everything well instead of describing Normal, Anti-Normal, Radial in and Radial out all in text.
 

It's NOT a game tutorial, it's a post about physics, as clearly stated.

2 hours ago, Slam_Jones said:

This is just opinion here, but a maneuver node is absolutely not necessary for stabilizing orbit.  Just makes sure you're on the cusp of the AP (vertical speed should stay very close to 0m/s during the burn... the closer the better) and burn until your PE is above 70km.  A bit simpler than working with maneuver nodes too, IMO!

I used the maneuver node to be more clear about what each maneuver does.

 

1 hour ago, suicidejunkie said:

I had never even thought about making a maneuver node for entering orbit.  Even the non-sassy engineers can handle "pointy end forward, then go faster until you're safe".

Any craft that has enough non-panicking time during the launch to make a node doesn't need it...

See above explanation.  Is it really that hard to understand that I'm using the game to explain how physics work and not making a post about the game??

[DerekL1963]

1 hour ago, SlabGizor117 said:

It's NOT a game tutorial, it's a post about physics, as clearly stated.

You may not have intended it to be a game tutorial, but that's exactly what it is nonetheless.  You spend far more time talking about the game and game concepts (and putting out bad information because of things the game gets wrong) than you do about physics.
 

1 hour ago, SlabGizor117 said:

 Is it really that hard to understand that I'm using the game to explain how physics work and not making a post about the game??

Is it really that hard to understand that you completely failed at your intended goal?  How many more people have to tell you that before it will sink in?

[GoSlash27]

A nit- picky point: "delta" literally means "difference between" or "change in". Therefore, you should never state "delta vee" (change in velocity) without clarifying the units and you *definitely* do not use DV as the unit itself.. You do not say "3400 delta v", you say "a delta v of 3,400 meters per second". I know it comes off as pedantic, but it hurts my ears when people say that, as nonsensical as "how many talls you are" or "130 heavies".

 When you phrase it that way, the people who know what you're trying to say look at you like you were dropped on your head and the people who *don't* know what you're trying to say are even more confused than when you started.

 Apologies and carry on,
-Slashy

Edited January 24, 2017 by GoSlash27

[SlabGizor117]

16 minutes ago, DerekL1963 said:

You may not have intended it to be a game tutorial, but that's exactly what it is nonetheless.  You spend far more time talking about the game and game concepts (and putting out bad information because of things the game gets wrong) than you do about physics

I spend time talking about the game's concepts because it's a good tool to explain physics with and though it's inaccurate between Kerbin and Earth for example, the concepts I explained still apply.

 

17 minutes ago, DerekL1963 said:

Is it really that hard to understand that you completely failed at your intended goal?  How many more people have to tell you that before it will sink in?

You know I don't know if you're trying to help with that but it definitely doesn't help me.  

 

16 minutes ago, GoSlash27 said:

A nit- picky point: "delta" literally means "difference between" or "change in". Therefore, you should never state "delta vee" (change in velocity) without clarifying the units and you *definitely* do not use DV as the unit itself.. You do not say "3400 delta v", you say "a delta v of 3,400 meters per second". I know it comes off as pedantic, but it hurts my ears when people say that, as nonsensical as "how many talls you are" or "130 heavies".

 When you phrase it that way, the people who know what you're trying to say look at you like you were dropped on your head and the people who *don't* know what you're trying to say are even more confused than when you started.

 Apologies and carry on,
-Slashy

You're right, I didn't think about that.  Saying it that way makes more sense though.

[Nathair]

I agree with all the critiques offered, but I upvoted you one for the effort and intention.

[DerekL1963]

2 hours ago, SlabGizor117 said:

I spend time talking about the game's concepts because it's a good tool to explain physics with and though it's inaccurate between Kerbin and Earth for example, the concepts I explained still apply.

You also spend too much time talking about game concepts that are complete irrelevancies to the concepts you are trying to explain.  You also try and use game mechanics with no real-world analog to explain concepts, resulting in you getting them completely wrong in real world terms.  Hence, in the end, it's a game tutorial, not a physics discussion.

 

2 hours ago, SlabGizor117 said:

You know I don't know if you're trying to help with that but it definitely doesn't help me.

You've given no evidence you want help.  Heck, you've given no evidence that you even grasp that you need help in the first place.  Quite the opposite, you've loudly and repeatedly insisted that you don't need help and that anyone trying to give help and advice is a priori wrong, wrong, wrongity, wrong.

[regex]

Nitpick: Kerbin isn't basically Earth, not even remotely. At most it's a cheap analogue. You need nearly three times as much delta-V to get to LEO compared to LKO and there are many other differences, some of which you touched on. I would also suggest you read up on rocket engines and how they work in regards to ambient pressure which will help expand your explanations about the difference between thrust and delta-V at sea level and in space.

I'd log in and upvote but your complaint on your own post ... sorry for being harsh, but that's pretty vain.

[evileye.x]

Honestly speaking there are several learning stepping stones in KSP:

1) You fly all in-game tutorials

2) Start new game, getting to orbit/ mun orbit/ mun landing with moar boosters

only after that.

3) Install Kerbal Engineer

4) Watch Scott Manley Interstellar series

5) Install 100+ mods

6) 6.4x for the win

7) RSS + RO + RP-0

Oh, and by the way since 1.2 you can read nice in-game KSPedia in between.

On topic: really - in game tutorials are really good for a start. I think it is completely wrong to recommend installing mods and KER right from the start 

 

 

Edited January 24, 2017 by evileye.x

[Nathair]

3 hours ago, evileye.x said:

I think it is completely wrong to recommend installing mods and KER right from the start

 

I think that depends on the mods. I see no problem at all with installing, say, Scatterer or Chatterer or even PreciseNode or KAC. Personally, I'd recommend KER as well to a new player although I can see why some purists might feel otherwise.

[Ohm is Futile]

14 hours ago, evileye.x said:

[...]

Oh, and by the way since 1.2 you can read nice in-game KSPedia in between.

On topic: really - in game tutorials are really good for a start. I think it is completely wrong to recommend installing mods and KER right from the start 

Agreed on the KSPedia.

I have to vigorously disagree about KER though. Sure, go around and experiment around Kerbin without mods, get a feel for the game. Past that, I just don't have the free time to go interplanetary without KER. No way I am going to spend hours designing vehicles, putting them into orbit, docking and refueling and trying to land them on other planets without any TWR, dV and other similar, crucial pieces of information. Sure, I could calculate them myself, but then why not install KER at that point and save yourself the time?

There's a reason humanity has created so many tools and while I value understanding the fundamentals, I think it's debilitating to force yourself to do such repetitive work, especially for a game like this.

Matter of opinion, of course, but I think that having to go through mods to avoid making dV calculations just makes the game more obscure and makes a lot of people quit or avoid a game that could teach them so much.

[GoSlash27]

9 minutes ago, Ohm is Futile said:

Agreed on the KSPedia.

I have to vigorously disagree about KER though. Sure, go around and experiment around Kerbin without mods, get a feel for the game. Past that, I just don't have the free time to go interplanetary without KER. No way I am going to spend hours designing vehicles, putting them into orbit, docking and refueling and trying to land them on other planets without any TWR, dV and other similar, crucial pieces of information. Sure, I could calculate them myself, but then why not install KER at that point and save yourself the time?

There's a reason humanity has created so many tools and while I value understanding the fundamentals, I think it's debilitating to force yourself to do such repetitive work, especially for a game like this.

Matter of opinion, of course, but I think that having to go through mods to avoid making dV calculations just makes the game more obscure and makes a lot of people quit or avoid a game that could teach them so much.

Ohm,

 I personally lean the other way. I think it's important to understand what all those mods are doing and more importantly *why* to give you a better understanding of the physics of it all. I'm notorious for never using any mods, but only spreadsheets that I personally wrote. I believe this gives me a deeper understanding and makes me a better player than I would otherwise be.

 YMMV,

-Slashy

[Just Jim]

On 1/23/2017 at 2:14 PM, SlabGizor117 said:

Let me know what you think!

http://imgur.com/gallery/Rp40E

Sucks that I'm getting downvoted, though.

I know this is terribly off-topic, and I apologize, but I have to ask... what is downvoted?

[Ohm is Futile]

1 hour ago, GoSlash27 said:

Ohm,

 I personally lean the other way. I think it's important to understand what all those mods are doing and more importantly *why* to give you a better understanding of the physics of it all. I'm notorious for never using any mods, but only spreadsheets that I personally wrote. I believe this gives me a deeper understanding and makes me a better player than I would otherwise be.

 YMMV,

-Slashy

I totally agree that understanding the physics is a tremendous help and knowing how everything interacts is also crucial. I also agree that going straight for a mod and never looking at what it is doing and how variables work and influence each other is a bit of a waste.

Where I disagree is that this information requires a mod to be shown. A lot of players are simply never even going to be aware of the concepts of TWR and dV. They are going to mess with the game and hit a wall. Some people are simply not going to look for the answers without obvious hints. KER gives you those obvious hints. Sure, you might be lazy and as such you will pay the price when rockets that should work on paper will fail in practice, but I think the game would retain a larger portion of players if the information was available without a mod. Players who are willing to better themselves and learn the inner workings will do so regardless of whether or not the information is shown. Players who are frustrated because there is no obvious indicator of why they are failing are more likely to just quit. Furthermore, it's easier to ask yourself what dV is if it appears in-game than just coming across the term while looking for information outside the game.

The KSPedia was a step in the right direction, but still, KSP is a game and it's a game that can push people to want to learn more and it saddens me that it would leave the players to do useless work by design. It's not the act of calculating dV that makes you smarter about the game, it's knowing what goes into those fancy formulas.

Anyways, as I said, matter of opinion, I'm not necessarily advocating the ability to automate everything MJ-style (in fact, I would hate that), but I know I would've probably quit playing the game a long time ago if I had to tab out and hit excel every time I made a change to a rocket design to see exactly what the effects of those changes are.

[Nickel AP]

Just here to say OP's name is awesome. Good day!

[LordFerret]

On 1/23/2017 at 2:41 PM, HebaruSan said:

... is for keeping your phone busy during your bowel movements.

Couldn't be more true; along with Reddit, Twitter, Facebook, etc etc etc