Osprey

Banned for being too slow on the reply post.

Someone after my own heart. I use a mission naming convention borrowed from Nasa, that is to say use terms from mythology with a mission number. The twist for mine is, the deities I use are all from the Forgotten Realms D&D universe... Kerbin - Toril (not a deity, I know) Mun - Selune Minmus - Mystra Moho - Kossuth Eve - Sune Duna - Tempus Dres - Cyric Jool - Torm Eeloo - Auril I name my launcher schematics after various creatures, e.g. Low orbit, l. payload launcher - Kobold (cur. Mk.IV) Low orbit, m.. payload launcher - Salamander Low orbit, h. payload launcher - Yuan-ti etc., etc. I don't really do spaceplanes, but when I do they'll be named after nations... Amn Cormyr Tethyr etc. That said, I'm open to suggestions for a way of making this more standardised. I like the prefix with mission designation stuff that some have done, would make searching the ship list a bit easier for sure.

Banned for not banning a user in post.

While interesting, it would be impossible given the laws of planetary formation (it basically relies on the direction of the rotation of the protoplanetary disc). That said, it is possible for planetary rotation about it's axis to be different, Venus rotates slower than it's orbital speed, thus appearing to rotate clockwise in relation to the sun, though it still orbits anti-clockwise. Uranus by way of a contrast has such an extreme axial tilt that it is essentially on it's side. With regards orbiting the sun in a different direction, this is where we need comets to come into their being...

I just try to get the closest I can from whatever point I launch, I'm not yet familiar enough with the mechanics of transfer orbits to know the ideal position. I find however, with a good slingshot off the Mun, you can make up for the extra velocity needed for a less than ideal transfer distance burn.

Best.... euphemism... ever.

Ditto on the science gathering thing, as I've only played career mode at the moment (I bought the game on 18th October). That said, I'd also like to introduce an aspect of role-play into it. I have had a space station with 4 Kerbals aboard on a previous save, but felt the need to switch them around every weekend or so. One thing career mode could use, once finances are brought in, are missions with cash rewards, i.e. land a 3-Kerbal ship on Duna and return it, or launching satellite assemblies (pre-determined) into various orbit locations/inclinations. If it's a straight monthly funding thing, it might get a bit tedious just waiting for the timer to tick over...

I thought 'just visiting' was a blank ribbon (i.e. no clasps).

Crud, I forgot that I upgraded my OS to 64-bit on Monday, and didn't transfer my screen shots before formatting. As it happens Vanamonde, my design is pretty similar to yours, only with two radial orange engines (whatever they're called, I'm not in-game to look it up) on the outside, two lights for landing timing, RCS and a ladder, though the legs are somewhat higher up to lower the centre of mass also. Fortunately, I'm pretty handy when it comes to docking, so the difficulty isn't a problem, save for the requirement of extra RCS fuel for the tweaking and manoeuvring bit.

Hello all, So I've been landing on the Mun for a while now, my best effort to date being a 1.5m/s touchdown in a Midland Crater, felt properly smug for a while. My question is about efficiency. I currently land my command pod and fuel for return on the surface, and blast off to get back to Kerbin, usually with no fuel remaining, and using all but about 30 units of mono propellant from 80 to start (I use some fuel and mono on the descent final seconds also, after detaching the main stage. It works pretty well, and it's a design that's done the job for me thus far. But I'm not convinced that this is the best method, and even a small weight difference on the lander can mean a significant fuel usage increase to get out of the atmosphere at the first step. So, which is more efficient/easier/better as an option? 1. An all-in-one ship and lander, leaving behind no parts. 2. A lander leaving behind the landing fuel surplus, tanks, engines and legs, with enough power to return to Kerbin alone. 3. Lander docking with an orbital command module for separate Kerbin re-entry. Eventually, I plan to build a Munbase Alpha (complete with flared trousers and implausible science fiction scenarios), and an orbital station for regular surface-orbit transfer activity, and also to serve as a design prototype for deep-space manned missions. For now at least, I wanted to know if anyone had an opinions on this, and whether anyone has actually tested the weight/fuel-consumption numbers to see what works best. I'll upload a picture of my lander when I get back home from work. The best part in my opinion is that it also leaves zero debris in orbit and only a flag on the surface. That said, I kind of like the idea of leaving part of the spacecraft on the surface as with the Apollo missions, but that's really not an important feature, not crashing into empty stages is far more important to me... P.S. I'm also playing this in career mode.

I don't mean adding the numerals to the ribbons LeadMagnet, I meant for the mission flags generator. I reckon the numeral should be about 1/3rd the height of the flag (i.e. same thickness as the moon cross-band on those flags that have them) and located in the centre of the top 2/3 of the image (i.e. the centre of the numeral line is 1/3 of the way down the flag), particularly as the orbital line and the ship icon are offset below the centre, this should avoid any ugly or obscuring overlap. As for the font, I've really no idea, though I suspect white with a black border, as with the ship icons would match nicely. Rounded corners would also probably match the style of the ship icons somewhat. I made an example in MSPaint to as best as possible try to illustrate what I mean. I used Lucida Bright as the font, and hand edited a border with slightly rounded corners, but I'm sure there are some purpose fonts out there that would look much neater. Actually, that just refers to the US forces. For the Commonwealth countries, France and Germany at least, you get a bar denoting campaigns or battles, but worn on the full ribbon with the medal.

This is pretty sweet. My only suggestion for improvement to the mission flag generator is the option to put Roman Numerals onto flags to reflect mission numbers. Otherwise top notch. Server donation made