Well this fits your spec criteria. I might tinker with it more tomorrow. Personally I think decane is too expensive for a missile though
The reduction in cross section (especially with wobbly lasers!) greatly increases survivability, making it possibly worth it because you'll need less missiles to penetrate their defenses and generate a kill. I'll have to test.
I'm not looking forwards to this, as my assault carriers are all based on sizes optimized months ago, so once I redesign my missiles the launchers are going to change and then my drones will change vastly in size and shape and I'll have to redesign my entire fleet of capital ships as well might as well delete all my designs and start over
Sorry for the lack of updates, i've been swamped recently. I've alot less free time lately.
Coming next will most likely be the materials study, since adding NTR nozzle data wouldn't strictly be necessary, as the current nozzle data on chemical rockets is vaguely sufficient for the task. Another reason for this is that I've decided rather than adding tons of depth at the moment, I will expand the breadth of this thread beforehand; Adding depth later.
Also after looking at the mess I've created here, I have decided this thread needs a quick goto section for brief overviews of 'ideal layouts' to achieve given parameters.
What brought about this you say? Well, tessfield's work on his SSOS thread puts my organisational skills to shame. So I will improve; I can't read or decipher my own mess here, and I wrote it!
Stay tuned, I will attempt to have something ready by Friday.
The reduction in cross section (especially with wobbly lasers!) greatly increases survivability
Why are y'all still using decane instead of the new RP-1 (ie. dodecane)?
Lazy. 90% of my designs are obsolecent since the aerogel shadownerf. I have to redo my submunitions, which means I need to redo the bus stages and spend time formfitting them, then the crewed carriers probably need a whole redesign... Basically everything.
Now I have to spend time buildng deskjetser -compliant RP-1 drives
Added the beginnings of the material study data, with material study synopsis on the way. (Chemical rocket tables added for easy lookup, with NTR tables coming in the future.)
Updated in progress list
Small changes may follow.
I'm thinking of making a video to go along with the synopsis to save on reading walls of text; Does this sound like something that would help?
Also I need more materials for the study, as boron and diamond are really commonly used, whereas reinforced carbon carbon and amorphous carbon are not; They were added just for extra comparison and since I've used them in the past. Please suggest more materials! (Not plastics or low melting point materials though, since I struggled very hard to incorporate UHMWPE into the study and failed miserably. It's just far too different and requires drastic changes in the method of construction, leading to non fair comparisons.)
EDIT: and my improved version. I think the main stumbling block is figuring out how to keep the chamber temperatures cool enough that the heating coil doesn't melt, and so far the only way I've seen to do that mass-effectively is to dump a whole lotta propellant into it all at once, which seriously hurts its ability as an endurance thruster. If anyone could help further optimize, I'd be obliged. (Coil is Tantalum Hafnium Carbide.)
I think the main stumbling block is figuring out how to keep the chamber temperatures cool enough that the heating coil doesn't melt, and so far the only way I've seen to do that mass-effectively is to dump a whole lotta propellant into it all at once, which seriously hurts its ability as an endurance thruster. If anyone could help further optimize, I'd be obliged. (Coil is Tantalum Hafnium Carbide.)
The power input and the melting point of the coil material determine the amount of propellant that goes in. If you want to put 10 GW through a single engine, that's how much propellant it needs. If you want to reduce the amount of propellant it takes, you need to put less power in.
I tried tweaking your design.
Gimbal radius is 4.955. Diamond chamber has greater thermal conductivity and allows thicker wall, smaller throat radius, and less mass. Increased chamber length also helps cooling, for some reason, although 8.4 cm seems to be near a local maximum. I couldn't increase wall thickness/reduce throat radius any more without running into thermal problems. Increasing the chamber contraction ratio to 6 avoids the missing thrust problem. Increased expansion ratio to non-bottle-rocket levels, for better Isp.
Of course, if you use decane (or worse, RP-1) resistojets, don't forget to cross to the other side of the street if you see the law of conservation of energy coming your way. This one's 8090% efficient.