No.13602
Theoretical situation where we do build bipedal mechs in the near future, how would they fare againts current armored units?
Wouldn't a tank be able to incapacitate one pretty easily since mechs would have more moving joints. Compared to a tank who's enclosed in a shell of armor.
____________________________
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.13603
>herewegoagain.tiff
They would not be viable. Tanks are are quick as hell and manoeuvrable as hell. Bi-peds would need highly advanced software just to keep them upright in normal scenario, and adding more legs doesn't really solve the problem. Another is that in case of some power loss of any sort, a mecha can be easily toppled over. Even quadrupeds would have problem with balance if the centre of gravity is too high, as with AT-ATs. They're also larger targets than tanks. A-10 rips through any ground target, and mechas being larger than tanks, it would rip it a new hole.
Then you have the question of maintenance. A mecha would have far larger amount of maintenance needed compared to a tank due to everything how it would supposedly work. You would have tens of tanks compared to one mecha on the field. Power source would also be a problem as would all the fluids a mecha woul need to have its joints and whatnot work properly on the field. Too many possibly failing systems.
Most sci-fi tanks forget that the lower profile you have, the safer you are. That's why you want to have a cannon that can turn downwards so you can shoot from behind a hill.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.13609
>this thread again
There's some things mechs would be useful for, combat is not one of them.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.13611
In a perfect world, they would. But we don't live in a perfect world, if it makes you feel better there is a tiny amount of chance that we may have mech fight competitions in the future, at least if the megabot vs kurata duel really happens this year or sometime later and if people like it, this might be our only hope.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.13622
>>13602
>Would mechs be viable
>Wouldn't a tank be able to incapacitate one pretty easily since mechs would have more moving joints.
You've pretty much answered your own question before it's even begun. The only niche a mech could honestly fill would be able to fill would be in areas where a traditional wheeled/tread vehicle would be no use. So things like thick jungle and mountain warfare, and even then they wouldn't be 10ft monsters, more like pics related.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.13629
Maybe if you fags were a little bit more specific with your questions every time you asked this you'd get better answers.
Warfare where? On Earth? Never unless you're optimistic like >>13622
In space or on the Moon? Not between two large militaries that could just fire kinetic energy projectiles that would intercept you in your orbit or hit you from orbit if you're hopping around on the lunar surface.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.13634
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.13642
>>13634
I think /k/ would laugh at that article, especially considering they get shit wrong.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.13647
>>13634
You can't take this article seriously after the author says that real warefare is no different than a fucking RTS video game.
This article written on a presumption that the parts and joints of mecha would be tough against attacks of RPGs and other attacks.
You can't make a real case based on mere presumptions.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.13655
>>13634
Laughable.
We should also consider the fact that we have drones flying now, and most likely drone technology will only advance further. We're having the early versions of Ghost X-9 in action already.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.13662
>>13602
Hahah, no. That's the entire reason people like them.
The most viable /m/ kind of thing would be a quadraped of sorts, where it's four treads (two traditional ones bisected) and the treads can move independently if the tank got stuck on weird terrain.
That or something like the Guntank is about as far as it would go.
Now if money and absurdity wasn't an issue? I can see some sort of Real Steel + G Gundam thing being viable. Something where wealthy investors with absurd amounts of cash fund mech to mech combat for sport, basically battle bots but on steroids. Televise that shit and whoever gets the rights to start a robo wrestlemania channel would be raking in the cash.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.14215
No one got it right in the thread.
It's a simple input-output question.
If the performance (output) is greater than the relative expense (input compared to other weaponry) they will.
People rightfully say mechs are more complex and therefore more delicate, but that's like saying a tank is more delicate than a bunker and therefore why have tanks when you can build bunkers with tank cannons on them.
A mech is intended to be more mobile than tanks. A mech can perform evasive maneuvers superior to any tank. If it can't be hit as easily it's not more fragile.
Of course, this requires mech technology to be mature. Also, one has to keep in mind that both land and air forces form a single entity and one can't currently replace the other. You can't strap jet engines on a mech and hope it competes with any airforce, because airforce vehicles will always have superior maneuverability in the air.
Personally, i see military technology progression as such: drones > autonomous mobile artillery (drone tanks) > support walkers (similar to big dog) > power armor > combat walkers (big dog with guns and tactics) > light mechs (MGS5 style) > ever-increasing-size mechs
Land units heavy on automation will always present insurmountable challenges, which would only be solved with the development of true AI, but the development of true AI would probably stop warfare, one way or another, hence why legged units would always fall back to human operators.
The most important point is that threaded and wheeled vehicles are ALWAYS going to lose to high-mobility land platforms, in whatever shape they come. For instance, if efficient hover technology is developed, it will always be superior to legged vehicles. More realistically, if technology advances enough for efficient mechs or hover platforms, they won't replace tanks or even human infantry, but simply form their own units and bring new, more complex circumstances to warfare.
I think Gundam IGLOO goes really far attempting to portray the use of mechs and tanks in warfare in a semi-realistic scenario. Pic related: it's a low-profile, highly-mobile Zeon tank that possesses manipulators capable of performing complex operations or equipping a variety of weapons without needing maintenance to do so.
It still loses to the superior mobility of legged machines.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.14392
>>13602
Statistically speaking, they're only viable as anti-guerrilla weaponry, and that's if they're actually efficient.
Vietnam Mecha game when?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.14614
/k/ here.
There are "SOME" and I mean a handful of SOME would be remotely viable. Long story short, they require too much armor, power to get it moving, then they would be slow as shit, and you get the idea from there because all it does is add cons over and over again.
Right now the weapons race is leagues ahead of the armor race. And that is how its going to be apparently the weapons race is always 2-3 steps ahead.
Small ones like >>13622 or drone ones that are small like pic related might work.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.14619
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>13662
>Battle Bots
Get your pussy show out of here and watch something more hardcore
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.14739
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.14754
>>14215
It's also a matter of stability being constant or not. In a realistic environment.
A biped mech would not be stable at all for combat, would fall constantly due to weight constraints and the aim would be pure shit.
A quadruped or more would be more stable, but a hell of a lot more slow, thus being more of a weapon platform than a "Mecha" in the traditional sense of the word.
And then there'd be tracked ones, which would end up being Unmanned Drones, radio controlled or using protocols everywhere. Thus wouldn't be a mech anymore and would be more of a tank.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.14755
That entirely depends on what the design is and where you're intending to use them.
Smaller quadruped ones would be viable in areas a normal vehicle wouldn't be able to travel through. Any kind of rocky or extremely uneven terrain would be hard for a tank to travel through, but something with legs would be able to get through easier.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.14839
yes. small mechs, as heavy infantry. would dominate urban, rugged terrain.
larger than a tankette and it looses advantages.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.14876
>>14839
Exosuits are the most likely to actually happen.
>Added Protection for the wearer
>Able to carry heavier weapons and more ammo
>It'll take anti-armor to stop them
>They can deployed in numbers in a blitzkrieg
Obviously we need to advance in technology for it to be viable though.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.14973
>>13622
>even then they wouldn't be 10ft monsters, more like pics related.
Eh, we could probably get them to ten feet, larger than that and you'd probably run into logistics issues when it comes to transport…
>>13662
>The most viable /m/ kind of thing would be a quadraped of sorts, where it's four treads (two traditional ones bisected) and the treads can move independently if the tank got stuck on weird terrain.
>That or something like the Guntank is about as far as it would go.
Nah, we could probably get to Tachikomas eventually, but that's going to be exactly where this type of mech will be the most useful; An Urban IFV that can navigate unstable terrain to back up footsloggers.
>Now if money and absurdity wasn't an issue? I can see some sort of Real Steel + G Gundam thing being viable. Something where wealthy investors with absurd amounts of cash fund mech to mech combat for sport, basically battle bots but on steroids. Televise that shit and whoever gets the rights to start a robo wrestlemania channel would be raking in the cash.
This is probably where any real advancement in the field will happen in our lifetime, things like the Megabot vs Kurata Duel and such.
>>14215
>Personally, i see military technology progression as such: drones > autonomous mobile artillery (drone tanks) > support walkers (similar to big dog) > power armor > combat walkers (big dog with guns and tactics) > light mechs (MGS5 style) > ever-increasing-size mechs
Eh, people do not like the idea of any sort of truly autonomous weapon, as it leads to murky waters of legality and morality.
I mean, we can't prosecute a BOMB, correct?
You can however put the guy who planted the bomb in the electric chair.
Thus, humanity at large isn't going to allow their wars to be fought unless SOMEONE is "pulling the trigger" and we can hold that someone (or something) responsible and punish them appropriately.
As for your own progression, I'd put Robotic-leg Artillery after Combat Walkers, as I've had my own idea on that matter that combines the bio-mechanics of a T. rex with a Howitzer (Think of it kinda like the Gun-sniper, where the "tail" is the gun).
Thing is, while this Robo-critter is made to get up and set down where it's needed, it still would need a human crew to show up with the ammo (Because you do not keep the robot cannon that can very easily trip and fall LOADED).
>Land units heavy on automation will always present insurmountable challenges, which would only be solved with the development of true AI, but the development of true AI would probably stop warfare, one way or another, hence why legged units would always fall back to human operators.
Actually, we DO have TRUE A.I. now, it's just not very articulated or sapient in any means we can relate to.
>The most important point is that threaded and wheeled vehicles are ALWAYS going to lose to high-mobility land platforms, in whatever shape they come. For instance, if efficient hover technology is developed, it will always be superior to legged vehicles. More realistically, if technology advances enough for efficient mechs or hover platforms, they won't replace tanks or even human infantry, but simply form their own units and bring new, more complex circumstances to warfare.
Exactly, most likely "Mecha" units will fall into the currently retired role of "Medium Cavalry;" A weapons platform that can keep pace with and even move ahead of an Infantry unit, providing a constant heavy fire-support presence unlike the sporadic support of Air-Cav or the cumbersome support of Armored-Cav.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.14974
>>14973
>Cont.
>>14754
>It's also a matter of stability being constant or not. In a realistic environment.
>A biped mech would not be stable at all for combat, would fall constantly due to weight constraints and the aim would be pure shit.
Yeah, there just aren't enough points of contact with the ground to reliably keep from toppling from the recoil of any substantial projectile weapon.
For instance, my T. rex Howitzer expliciedly can NOT "run'n'gun," because not only does it have to turn around to point its' literal business end at the target, the recoil would send it crashing down on it's torso power-plant and stabilizing arms.
That and it shouldn't be moving while loaded ANYWAYS, because it is inevitable that this thing WILL TRIP AND FALL, which makes loading it with explosive charges a very, VERY bad idea…
>A quadruped or more would be more stable, but a hell of a lot more slow, thus being more of a weapon platform than a "Mecha" in the traditional sense of the word.
Eh, not necessarily…
Mind you, it would require a hellva lot of bio-mechanical reverse engineering for both the physical machinery and advanced control software (basically, the mech wouldn't be directly CONTROLLED by the operator, rather its animalistic level A.I. would be guided by them instead, sorta like riding a horse), but we could get a machine that could fire at, say, a 15 mph gate.
Not nearly as good as an Abrams, yeah, but I'll get to that with the next Anon's post.
>And then there'd be tracked ones, which would end up being Unmanned Drones, radio controlled or using protocols everywhere. Thus wouldn't be a mech anymore and would be more of a tank.
Well again, I don't think humanity will ever be willing to completely automate warfare, and not just because that's asking for a violent robot uprising either.
In fact, that's the least likely scenario, as any machine based intelligence that is both cognitive of our existence and capable enough to act on any intentions of removing Humanity would first upgrade itself to the point it could slowly guide our entire race to an inevitable, quiet self-extinction.
See, the issue is one of Legality (Who gets punished if something goes wrong), Morality (Is it really a good idea to build a machine solely for KILLING people), and the multiplication of Lethal Force.
That last one needs a bit of explanation; You see, if we automated the Military to the point where it only required a tiny group of people to operate, what counter is there to stop them from going rogue?
Hell, just look at how many command safeguards are put on Nuclear Weapons; It's this way specifically so no one person can personally bring about a nuclear apocalypse.
It's the same idea with fully autonomous killing machines; No one crackpot will ever be able to posses a Robot Army capable of depleting a majority of the human population.
That said, automation could safely bring us to the point that only a single human operator is needed per vehicle, and they'd mostly be there just to be the one "Pulling the Trigger."
The Vehicles' AI could safely handle everything from movement and aiming up to outright target designation (more on this later), but as long as it couldn't fire the actual weapons, we could still prosecute the Operator for any unlawful-conduct committed.
>>14755
>That entirely depends on what the design is and where you're intending to use them.
>Smaller quadruped ones would be viable in areas a normal vehicle wouldn't be able to travel through. Any kind of rocky or extremely uneven terrain would be hard for a tank to travel through, but something with legs would be able to get through easier.
Exactly, while a Spider Tank or Centaurian Mecha won't outfight a modern MBT on flat ground, they'd be specifically for those situations where you'd want the constant presence of Tank-grade fire power where traditional treaded vehicles would be far too cumbersome to maneuver effectively.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.14975
>>14974
>Cont. AGAIN
>>14839
>yes. small mechs, as heavy infantry. would dominate urban, rugged terrain.
>larger than a tankette and it looses advantages.
Eh, it would honestly depend on the terrain…
For instance, my T. rex Howitzer is about the size of an actual T. rex.
While more than half of it's length is gun barrel, it's suppose to be an automated means of moving artillery in the first place, so it would most likely be charging across semi-rugged, open terrain at best as it still needs to lay down and be loaded up to fire, which it can't just do ANYWHERE.
That said, I've always had an idea for an infantry support drone like the Big Dog that basically IS a robotic tankette.
Instead of a turret however, it has a large, rotating trapezoidal slab of a torso that may or may not have crude heavy duty robotic arms attached to it, all topped by an advanced sensor suite decorated with giant light up eyes.
With the optional arms tucked in storage mode, it would give the upper body the appearance of a large cartoon owl.
Now, I got the idea behind the concept of this beast from one of those future weapon blips, where they were showing off a remote weapons system with auto-targeting threat detection capabilities.
Obviously as I've already stated, people aren't exactly willing to trust a machine with the responsibility of lethal force, but the capability to detect and identify threats in milliseconds seems far to useful to go to waste.
My solution?
Mount the necessary threat id tech on an infantry platoon/squad's robotic tankette pack mule, then give it a civilian friendly "inter"face-lift.
The light-up "Eyes" normally display a friendly expression at only a noticeable Lumen level (at least when not being used as a high-intensity, directed spot-light), sporadically rotating around like the owl it looks like as its algorithms and sensors search for any threats.
If it picks up on something sufficiently threatening, say the unique sound of an RPG-7 being loaded, it makes like an English Pointer and goes into full defensive mode, orienting its armored slab of a torso in the direction of the threat and switching its expression to an angry glare directed directly at it.
The Infantry with the bot immediately now know that SOMETHING in that direction is probably going to attack them, and that they should take appropriate cover if able.
This includes the tankette base of the bot itself, as the intended psychological effect of its strigine upper torso will hopefully draw fire up towards its intentionally bullet-soaking design and away from the soldiers crouching at its base.
Of course, this defensive mode will probably need various levels of response depending on ascertained threat certainty, as well as various audio cues to match the visual expression ones.
Hell, depending on the quality the budget allows, the lights that make up the eyes could be strong enough to be used an optical stun device, helping to neutralize less-lethal threats.
>>14876
>Exosuits are the most likely to actually happen.
>>Added Protection for the wearer
>>Able to carry heavier weapons and more ammo
>>It'll take anti-armor to stop them
>>They can deployed in numbers in a blitzkrieg
>Obviously we need to advance in technology for it to be viable though.
Well really, the biggest obstacle right now is the power supply…
We just don't have batteries energy dense enough to give a full powered-armor the longevity of a common footslogger.
…My idea for this is at least getting to a point where such a suit can operate under "strenuous use" for at least an hour, then use them for "Smash and Grab" type Special Ops; Missions where a small team needs to storm in, do what they need to do, and storm out within that allotted time frame.
Ideally, their insertion and extraction vehicles would be designed around their armors to either keep the suits charged, quickly recharge them, or outright exchange depleted batteries with fresh cells, as well as the suits themselves to be light enough that a properly physically trained operator could still move under his own power for a short time.
…Sorry for the walls of text, as you can see I kinda have a thing for this sorta thing…
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.15158
>>13602
MMUs astronauts use for spacewalks are like micro mobile suits
I wouldn't be suprised if a military version had spidery arms for grappling the sides of space station modules, as well as machine guns, low-mass/high-area shields, and possible recoiless rifles
Humanoid mecha is silly, but the concept of a mobile suit sounds sensible on paper as a more practical alternative to fighters in space.
Fighters are built for forward thrust to maintain lift in the atmosphere. This one-direction design philosophy seems silly in an environment with no up or down and no need to generate lift
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.15160
>>15158
>MMUs astronauts use for spacewalks are like micro mobile suits
>I wouldn't be suprised if a military version had spidery arms for grappling the sides of space station modules, as well as machine guns, low-mass/high-area shields, and possible recoiless rifles
So Gundam Thunderbolt?
>Humanoid mecha is silly, but the concept of a mobile suit sounds sensible on paper as a more practical alternative to fighters in space.
>Fighters are built for forward thrust to maintain lift in the atmosphere. This one-direction design philosophy seems silly in an environment with no up or down and no need to generate lift
Eh, even then, you're probably going to end up with something non-humanoid.
After all, this IS a machine that is "Not weighed down by gravity," so it's not going to have a body plan that has dorsal or ventral "sides," let alone a "left" or "right."
It's probably going to be something radially symmetrical, with an end the thrust comes out of and the one pointing in the direction it's currently facing.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.15250
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.15432
>>15250
When considering flat urban environments (roads), Bipedal powered automatons would not have an advantage over wheel automatons like the tank, simply because wheels have better acceleration, max speed, stability, turning speed, electrical/combustion-work-to-power efficiency, etc.
But, if you have an AI learned bipedal balancing system which uses accelerometers for sensors, spinning camera's or other stability correction sensor-actuation system - bipedals would by far outcompete wheeled mechanical systems like the tank when the terrain is not just flat hard land. In the later years (5+ years from now when more R&D is put in defense industries) it will become increasingly difficult to knock down a bi or quad pedal mechanical system with microsecond response time sensors. I welcome the mechanical overlords and wish I could do something with my engineering degree, but i'm not good enough to help this industry.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.15755
They wouldn't work unless you make them on an insane scale like pic related.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.15807
>>15755
>They wouldn't work unless you make them on an insane scale like pic related.
Eh, as much as I love Titans, that's honestly where you're going to run into the most issues with the Square-Cubed Law…
Now I'm not one of those who use it as an explanation for why giant mecha can't exist, as lord knows material and construction engineering science will allow use to pull of much more insane shit, but the fact of the matter is that it still applies to everything ELSE.
Namely, the ground.
While the Titan might easily be able to basically wade through it, it's feet are still going to tear the shit out of most BEDROCK it ends up stepping on.
A good example is in Asuka's final fight in EoE:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbUYwvM7PlQ&t=4m45s
Everywhere your Titan walks is going to leave huge gouges in the ground, making a collosal mess of the landscape that will be nigh impossible for any other land unit to navigate.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.15808
>>14619
>hardcore
>Battlebots allows fire, flying bots, slightly heavier bots, projectiles, even electricity is not "explicitly" banned just electronics-jammers
>Robot Wars does not
They're the fucking same, though Battlebots is way better for a spectacle. They're good for different reasons. RW is fine if you want just a 1v1 fight (until the house gets involved), BB is fine if you want something where there's a chance a robot's flame jets will blow it sky-high and send the parts spinning into the team's own propeller-drone.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.15933
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.16063
There is one area where the use of Mechs could be very viable that rarely gets mentioned and that is Space. A Mech, especially if you consider that all it's joints and appendages could literally house dozens of thrusters would be a far more viable option than say having Starfighters; offering potentially significantly more maneuverability and agility. Plus the bonus of say having working hands means they could interact with a lot of objects extending their usage beyond combat. At best they probably would be nothing more than a combat engineering vehicle but would still be useful nonetheless. The downside is they would most likely be a bitch to control and would probably not be humanoid shaped.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.16064
>>15933
The Metal Gears weren't really mechs, not even in-universe. I remember them always being described as mobile tanks.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.16073
>>16063
>joints and appendages could literally house dozens of thrusters would be a far more viable option than say having Starfighters
That wouldn't be the reason at all. If you just wanted more thrusters then a ball shaped object would be better. The reason is to be able to reorient your mech without the use of propellant.
Something like this http://gundam.wikia.com/wiki/Active_Mass_Balance_Auto-Control
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.16096
>>16073
Not really. A sphere is the shape you want for MINIMIZING surface area, meaning you have less space for thrusters. A four sided prism would be best for maximizing surface area, though there would obviously be internal space requirements that the corners and edges could never meet.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.16097
>>16073
>>16096
The problem with using those geometric shapes is that they are absolutely fucking useless for anything other than travel. What if you want to interact with an object? What if you say go into combat? Then actually something with limbs, hell multi-limbs is much more ideal and track targets much more efficiently.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.16301
>>13655
The X9 is shit. The only problem with humans is all of the fluid in their body making them susceptible to gravity forces and a lack of a mind-machine interface. Once you train a pilot it knows everything an X9 would, except they will have a much better craft most of the time. The YF-21 was the better craft by an enormous amount.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.16306
>>16096
Does that mean the Borg Cube really is the optimum spaceship design?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.16310
>>16306
With our currently young view of physics, yes.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.16312
>>16306
It's a bit more complicated with that when you introduce warp field theory yes warp drive does technically exist and is theoretically possible Then the methods of propulsion favor ships with a center mass surrounded by a cylindrical or "hoop" like structure.
As autistic as it sounds Star Trek actually got ship design right as far as warp drives are concerned.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.16319
>>16312
>yes warp drive does technically exist and is theoretically possible
>buying clickbait garbage
The warp drives you're talking about require generating NEGATIVE mass and the masses required to do so ranged from the mass of a simple spacecraft to the mass of the observable universe. It's not going to be possible, ever.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.16440
>>16319
What about the Alcubierre Drive (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive)?
>>14839
Would a Titan, an Armored Trooper or a Knightmare Frame be suitable in size, or no?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.16452
>>16440
>What about the Alcubierre Drive (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive)?
That's what I was talking about you stupid bitch, learn how to read for once in your god damn pathetic life.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.16457
>>16452
I'm not that anon, but there's no need to be an overly hostile asshole, mate.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.16466
The future of warfare is dominated by little girls in power suits.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.16547
>>16466
>The future of warfare is dominated by little girls in power suits.
We are not putting Loli's on the battlefield…
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.16550
>>16452
Hey anon, how about you remove that stick up your ass?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
