RuBisCO

Well my Xylindine manages to hold par with my smaller Xeric. Mainly the Xylindine is more damage resistant, I made a 95 part "tougher wing" Xylindine (v1.1) to increase its survivability more, but it only improves by a few percentage points, at least against AIM9 and 20mm, the AIM120 just obliterates no matter what. So what I think I observe going on is one damage Xylindine gimping along distracts the Xerics such that the other can finish them off. If everyone is going to throw in small single engine fighters then I think I will put up my Xylindine instead of the smaller Xeric just to shack things up. http://www./download/otr3byzai9aofvc/Xylidine.zip Question: does the ECM jammer do anything... It does not seem to reduce the chance of AIM120 hits at all. Is there a trick to the things other then turning them on?

Not sure which to put up. Both seem equally matched. Xeric: Single engine, 45 part fighter: 4xAIM9, 2xAIM120, 3x3 Flares, 4xChaff, 1xAmmo, 1xVulcan Xylindine: Two engine, 85 part fighter: 4xAIM9, 3xAIM120, 3x3 Flares, 2xChaff, 1xAmmo, 1xVulcan http://www./download/10p2ob5bl6606bl/Xeric+and+Xylidine.zip I think... I think I will go with the Xylindine... NO WAIT I'll go with the Xeric, yes, because it has the fewest parts, so smallest fighter?

So I have a fuel tank hidden to keep the tail fin straight (because my OCD DEMANDS it be straight!). In the other's case I have the middle tanks empty. For this tournament do the planes start fighting in the air at altitude and distance or are they armed on the ground right next to each other? From what I saw on John Jones channel they are arm on the ground. I can use all 60 points right? 3xAIM120, 4xAIM9, 3xflares, 2xchaff, 1xammo, 1xVulcan Hidden?

Question: Is it alright to clip fuel tanks as long as they are empty?

Well I'm getting the idea that you are trying to realistically simulate how these weapon systems work. Would it not be easier simply to use the fact the game its self already registers the location of every craft regardless of distance from them? Like for example a spy sat camera would never SEE a craft from orbit as it is not rendered from that distance, but it could simply copy the location of that craft from the register and display it, pretending to have seen the craft and pretending to recognize it.

Sure fine, now I have not tried this put If I was aim at a craft, would it not lock onto that craft using the coordinates provided by the game its self? It was a suggestion, jeez, I even prefaced kindly saying to take them or leave them at your whim. Fine, scratch the supersonic bomber.

* Just want to note not criticizes BDArmory just point out its limitations and making suggestions, to be accepted or rejected. I made a supersonic long range bomber. First off all it would be nice if there was a side mounted targeting camera with full 360° hemispherical omni-vision. This one sort of sticks out the top if used as such. Second it does not make a good gps lock from very far off. It would be nice if there was a long distance camera that could be mounted to a spy satellite or recon aircraft, this camera would not necessarily take pictures rather provide GPS coordinates of targets that could be used by the bomber or other weapon platforms. Here It is armed it with cruise missiles. Now when I launch those missiles they start the engines up when when already going at ~1100 m/s and 20 km altitude, consuming all their fuel wastefully on the fall down, it would be nice if they only started the engines subsonic. Here it is armed with JDAMs. The JDAM aiming sight only arms at or below 5 km altitude, would be nice if it could go to say 20 km.

Suggestion: Could you make the airdropped cruise missiles start their engines only once they slow to a specific airspeed, say 300 m/s? If I drop one from a bomber at 20 km altitude and 1100 m/s then there is no window of operation for them where they don't either run out of fuel or overshoot the target.

Question: can the radar lock on to ground targets?

SciMan, Well it did pass a NASA safety review for going to a ISS: http://www.parabolicarc.com/2012/05/16/green-propellant-passes-iss-safety-review/

Then why is it going to ISS for space qualifications? They may have formulated the propellant and propulsion structure to insure a level of safety equal to that of hydrazine, yet have higher ISP, and be non-toxic.

Is not the other green monopropellent that been in development Nitrous Oxide Fuel Blends? http://www.firestar-tech.com/NOFBX-MP.html

Not sure I know what the "dart" is, I guess I will start reading the thread. It's pretty stable, center of gravity moves only a little from fully loaded and fully empty. Takes awhile to reach top speed though, but it is pretty maneuverable at slow speeds, especially if all flaps are used for roll, but roll will oscillate at high speeds if the wing flaps are set to roll. At high speeds be careful in a turn as you can rip it to pieces. With bombs it is best to have fuel tanks half empty (and pump fuel into forward tanks) before dropping them or else the center of gravity shifts too far for stable flight. It can circumnavigate kerbin once with 15 tons of ordnance instead of fuel tanks in the bomb bay.

Well I thank you, but I'm not much for badges, here is the craft file: http://www./download/whdrro3jks184a8/Xylonite.zip

Bomber with fuel tanks in place of bombs does 3 circumnavigations (with barely any fuel to spare) All stock parts. MechJeb used for attitude control and distance tracking. TACfuel transfer used to track fuel remaining. I hope this counts.

Well how much weight can the design take? What reasons are you eluding to?

That will add weight, I suspect a material change, some kind of carbon fiber with titanium treads.

Oh come on! kiwi1960, I did not put it in a tag because unless you have a 4k monitor the full size image requires most people to zoom in.

Not looking too good in latest selfy: http://mars.nasa.gov/msl/imgs/2015/08/mars-curiosity-rover-msl-horizon-sky-self-portrait-PIA19808-full.jpg How long will curiosities wheels last? Clearly the next rover needs a wheel re-design, but what exactly can be done to improve the wheel's strength while retaining light weight?

Question: why side-by-side, why not in tandem? Why not a two Kerbal 1.25 m airplane cockpit that we can put a heat shield on the back?

Agreed, more testing is needed first to prove it is actually producing thrust without propellant, then we can argue over theory.

If a cube sat manages a few dozen m/s in a few weeks with EMdrive the skeptics will claim it was a hoax, that the cubesat had some kind of alternate real propulsion on it. A cubesat demo would need: 1. No alternative propulsion, not even for attitude control, this means flywheel or emdrive attitude control, flywheels will only last so long before getting saturated. 2. Needs to do enough delta-v fast enough that no conventional propulsion could achieve it. Lets work with a 3U CubeSats that is 4 kg max weight to work with. Lets say hypotheticall if had a 3 kg rocket with ISP of 350, it would be able to do 4.8 km/s of delta-v! So we are talking about a 3U CubeSat that would need to go from geosyn loop around the moon and back a few times before the world believes that EMdrive is real beyond any and all doubt. I estimate to fit 12-16 EM drives in a cubesat, each drive would need to to be less then 5X5X5 cm long. A 40x32.7x27.8 resonates chamber would need to operate at 9.72 GHz, that sounds reasonable but I have not seen anyone test one above 4 GHz. The two outer cube units would hold 6-8 EM drives each, the inner cube would hold flight computer and batteries. Solar array of 30x30cm would (2 side wings) produce 32 watts at 20% efficiency. So each EM drive assuming four running at once at most would top out at 7-8 watts with continuous solar power, not including other inefficiencies. Let us assume 15 W at 0.1 mN/W that is 15 mN to accelerate 4 kg, or 3.75 mm/s^2 acceleration, it would take 15 days of continuous thrusting to do 4.8 km/s of delta-V. So say a several month mission to lunar orbit and back with a 3U cubesat would be possible IF EMdrive is real.

Again people this is a one time shot, if you design and build your rocket, save it, and load it, you failed You need to boot up the game, build the ship from scratch, fly it, land it and return all in one take In theory you could videorecord your self booting up the game, starting a new sandbox and building the ship, fly it, land it and return, with no cuts. This is not about showing off to others either (unless you can do the videorecording) this is a personal challenge, you your self know if you can do it or not, you your self know if you failed. I failed, sure I got a working design first try, but it took several tries for me to land it, needed to work on flying, specifically launching.

It all depends on how small they can get these thing, which in its self is a test of how it works. So far everyone has been testing in the 2-4 GHZ range, with "engines" too large to fit on a cube sat. One of these just a few cm wide that runs on a few watts should work according to Shawyer theory at 10-20 GHz. If the small one produces thrust and thrust to scale as predicted, then its more evidence for the extraordinary claims. Of course they will need to produce thrust, consistently for at least weeks in a vacuum chamber as well as prove linear acceleration in vacuum, before they will have enough evidence to warrant even a cubesat. A Satellite would need at least 12 "thruster" for full attitude control, maybe 3 fly-wheels and one thruster but that would not last too long in space, they are going to need to last long enough to demonstrate km/s to have the extraordinary evidence needed for the world will to believe.

IF it works that sounds like a likely candidate for the first space trials. I think that if this thing really is legit it won't be until an orbital platform does a few km/s in delta-v before the world believes. Someone is going to have to get one of these things into orbit. The small the better, but aren't this things limited by the frequency, the smaller it gets the higher the frequency required right?