US Space Force. Loosely based on modern day US Air Force.
Full size:
[url]http://marcpasquin.deviantart.com/art/US-Space-force-table-big-572891155[/url]
Moderators: Miklós Lovász, Zdzislaw Rudzki, Pavel Močoch, Erskine Calderon
to a greater level then the USAF ones ?dcfowler wrote:The biggest problem that I see would be difficulty in distinguishing the senior NCO rank insignia. They would look the same from a distance.
not sure what you mean. Is it that they seem uncomfortable to wear ?Dorward_Bis wrote:Hmmm.... These rank insignias look a bit non-ergonomic. Of course, this is just my opinion)
I posted the image so I could get feedback so opinion welcome. I might think of something and revisit later on.Dorward_Bis wrote: But, I repeat once again - this is just my opinion:)
Yes. With each chevron or rocker, the USAF insignia gets bigger. These are locked within a common shape and size, so that sort of distinguishing characteristic would be lost on the viewer.to a greater level then the USAF ones ?
But the 4 topmost ranks (which is what I assumed you were referring to) are only distinguished by a small symbol in the "void" or around the central star with their size being identical so I'm not sure if the rank insignias aboce would indeed be that much harder to tell apart from a distance.dcfowler wrote:Yes. With each chevron or rocker, the USAF insignia gets bigger. These are locked within a common shape and size, so that sort of distinguishing characteristic would be lost on the viewer.to a greater level then the USAF ones ?
For the E-9s, there is a significant blank space between the stripes and the rockers. 1st Sgt adds a lozenge, Command CMSgt adds a star. CMSAF has very little blank space at all. I suppose a lozenge and a star might be hard to distinguish at a distance, but my experience is that otherwise, you can tell them apart pretty well from far away. These seem more scrunched together, and would be harder to tell apart.But the 4 topmost ranks (which is what I assumed you were referring to) are only distinguished by a small symbol in the "void" or around the central star with their size being identical so I'm not sure if the rank insignias aboce would indeed be that much harder to tell apart from a distance.
Not always.venqax wrote:Not sure what some of the comments mean. The real USAF insignia are only distinguished by progressive numbers of chevrons. Same with the Army and Marines (arcs, or rockers). And the various E-9 types are, in fact, noted only by the symbols in the void between the chevrons and rockers. So what is different about these? One thing though: Since in the US system silver out-ranks gold, it doesn't really makes sense that the singular, highest ranking enlisted man would have gold instead of silver insignia. Just my opinion. Great artwork.
naval enlisted insignias was indeed my justification but as an aside, I was under the impression that pershing's were never officialy adopted, is there some sort of chart that includes it ?SFMRAS wrote: Not always.
General Pershing wore four gold stars as a General of the Army, while other generals wore four stars.
Command master chief petty officers have two silver stars above the arc and a silver star between the arc and the chevron, while the force master chief petty officers wear the same insignia, but with gold stars.
It's just the warrant and commissioned officers who currently have the silver over gold distinction.
This is the only thing I could find:marcpasquin wrote:naval enlisted insignias was indeed my justification but as an aside, I was under the impression that pershing's were never officialy adopted, is there some sort of chart that includes it ?SFMRAS wrote: Not always.
General Pershing wore four gold stars as a General of the Army, while other generals wore four stars.
Command master chief petty officers have two silver stars above the arc and a silver star between the arc and the chevron, while the force master chief petty officers wear the same insignia, but with gold stars.
It's just the warrant and commissioned officers who currently have the silver over gold distinction.
No. That is apparently something some Wikipedia user came up with. There is no supporting documentation, and the most thorough biographies of Pershing all say that he wore the same rank insignia as other generals. There is one painted portrait that shows gold stars, which I would attribute to artist error. There are a number of others that show silver stars. The "Specifications for the Uniform" (AR 600-35) Oct. 1921 states that the General of the Armies can prescribe his own coat collar insignia, but for shoulder rank insignia it lists only "General -- four silver stars".marcpasquin wrote:I was under the impression that pershing's were never officialy adopted, is there some sort of chart that includes it ?
I agree. In fact, I have submitted an inquiry to the US Army's history center asking for clarification regarding that very things. So far as I can tell, the "gold stars" are the creation of the famous painting and no record exists of Pershing actually wearing or adopting gold stars or wearing anything other than the standard 4 standard silver stars of a general. I think this is a "factoid" that keeps getting repeated without any substantiation. However, one site I found (can't find it now) did claim that the 4 gold stars were officially recognized as Pershing's insignia retroactively sometime in the 1950s. Have not corroboration of that, though, just one claim. No response yet from the Army's authorities.J.T. Broderick wrote:No. That is apparently something some Wikipedia user came up with. There is no supporting documentation, and the most thorough biographies of Pershing all say that he wore the same rank insignia as other generals. There is one painted portrait that shows gold stars, which I would attribute to artist error. There are a number of others that show silver stars. The "Specifications for the Uniform" (AR 600-35) Oct. 1921 states that the General of the Armies can prescribe his own coat collar insignia, but for shoulder rank insignia it lists only "General -- four silver stars".marcpasquin wrote:I was under the impression that pershing's were never officialy adopted, is there some sort of chart that includes it ?
Justin
Astronier ? Corpsman ?jrichardn2 wrote:Tho' what would the E-1 to E-4 (OR1-OR4) ranks be called? In the Air Force they're Airman Basic through Senior Airman. In the Space Corps would they be Spaceman? I don't think so.
My first thought was Space Corpsman, mainly to differentiate from the USN rating. I was also thinking that the red and yellow experimental airmen chevrons would be a good alternative to the blue and white ones.marcpasquin wrote:Astronier ? Corpsman ?jrichardn2 wrote:Tho' what would the E-1 to E-4 (OR1-OR4) ranks be called? In the Air Force they're Airman Basic through Senior Airman. In the Space Corps would they be Spaceman? I don't think so.
better yet, CYBERMEN SUITS !dcfowler wrote:The Cyber Corps uniform would be death metal tshirts and cutoff shorts.
It's not necessarily about manned space. All of the armed services have space commands that design and launch satellites, control space assets, analyze space intelligence, do early space warning operations, and many other things that don't involve astronauts. It already involves thousands of personnel and billions of dollars.From the wider point of view, I'm all for fun developments but, being objective, I just can't see that there's any real need for establishing a USSC at this time -- it seems a bit ahead of itself given the current state of any manned space programme (!).
Account no longer active. What was on it?Lord Cybran wrote:Wow... someone not well informed could take that for real...