74 replies to this topic

[Mudhutwarrior]

Read on fellow mech fans.....

http://aviationweek....reactor-details

[Joseph Mallan]

Now we need a neurohelmet and myomar

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 08 March 2015 - 04:47 AM.

[WarPickle]

They started making real mechs years ago

http://www.g4tv.com/...et-the-kuratas/

[Joseph Mallan]

Thats almost a Mech.
Smile Shot! Love it.

[Robomomo2000]

Give em' five more years and it will be done by two guys, Tomas Kearny and Takayoshi Fuchida. Then it will be ignored till ~2100 when we will fly across space threw Jump Ships. About 300 years of exploration and THEN we will have battlemechs.

-All according to the TT timeline.

P.S. In looking at this I discovered that the TT says we go to mars in 2027 and colonies it. NASA is going to mars in 25!!! Wow, a Sifi game set in the future that is within years of accuracy.

[Tordin]

Im not all that for privatization. But if its good for, then people could sponsor die hard visionaries. A prototype could be possible. Nothing is impossible. Mechs along with Tanks could supplement and cover each others weaknesses on the battlefield. While tanks would have lower profile and be faster, mechs would have the agility and firepower.

I bet the possible mechs would have to be different from the BT universe ones due to legal rights, unless permitted (which would be AWESOME). Would be neat to see them go for a light first, a Raven or Commando maybe?

They said flying like the birds were impossible, the Wright brothers were among the first flight/ plane pioneers. They said space flight and landing on the moon were impossible, again proven wrong. Several other examples. No, nothing is impossible. Its about having the tenacity, willpower and vision to make things happen.

[S3dition]

Put this in the cold fusion stack.

[Basskicker]

Well Thomas Edison first had to find out 2000 ways how not to make a lightbulb.... I wish Lockheed Martin luck, but I wouldn't start getting my hopes up for battlemechs in our lifetime just yet. Getting a slimmed down sustainable fusion reactor is just the first of many hurtles needed to be jumped.

[Rear Admiral Tier 6]

Basskicker, on 08 March 2015 - 09:30 PM, said:

Well Thomas Edison first had to find out 2000 ways how not to make a lightbulb.... I wish Lockheed Martin luck, but I wouldn't start getting my hopes up for battlemechs in our lifetime just yet. Getting a slimmed down sustainable fusion reactor is just the first of many hurtles needed to be jumped.

miniature Thorium-fission liquid salt reactor would be more feasible to be honest,very common fuel,good effiency and more secure in the case of reactor breach.

Shame that they abandoned Thorium as a fuel for any power plants because it cant be used as a weapon.

[Nik Reaper]

Even if you could make a fusion power reactor, you still wouldn't want to make BT size mechs, power suits are very likely but 10m high human articulated robots with a manned pilot... lol , just thinking about it.. just lol.

The thing stoping mechs in its tracks are 2~3 things:

1) Huge surface area , meaning lots of armor meaning lots of weigh , meaning huge presure on the surface of the feet , meaning sinking mechs x)

3) We are still in a position of weapon>armor , so like the light mechs of MWO mobile weapons live by mobility and the hope that that the armor will stop that one shell that hits it. Being a hard to miss target means certin death.

3 ) Construction materials , and more so actuators , even if we had neurohelmets to add a sence of balance and we did programe complexe movement algoritems so that it could walk and move like a human ( still confused why we would want that , as there are numerous better nature inspired designs with a lot more stability such as insects ) the presure on those ball or spherical bearings would be huge, like the tanks of old needeing tankers of fuel, mechs would need trucks full of actuators to trail behind them and like a formula racer, change them after every larger action.

Ei. Huge humanoid robots cool, but a very bad practical idea ... just as the insects use trahea systems to gain acces to oxigen to there blood, we can't use that due to our size and need lungs , just like that a giant warmachine would need to be different than a small one. And let's be frank , why do we evenneed someting like that , we are far more likely to use miniature drones to kill each other , as they will be precise, easy to manufacture and cheap in compareson to tanks and, lol, Mechs.

Edited by Nik Reaper, 09 March 2015 - 04:51 AM.

[Heffay]

[Nik Reaper]

Heffay, on 09 March 2015 - 04:53 AM, said:

And that illustarates , that non humanoid , smaler scale robots , like the boston dynamics big dog and many alike could have a use, even a militery one , in rought terrain, maybe even armed as weapons. But a 5+ m high bipedal robot? I would think that 3m is about as high as you'd want a weapon to be as it wouldn't be much higher than a tank.

[AWOL 01]

Joseph Mallan, on 08 March 2015 - 04:47 AM, said:

Now we need a neurohelmet and myomar

I wrote a paper on carbon nanotube muscles and they're amazing. They definitely meet the requirements for mech propulsion so check myomer off the list.

Nik Reaper, on 09 March 2015 - 04:45 AM, said:

The thing stoping mechs in its tracks are 2~3 things:

1) Huge surface area , meaning lots of armor meaning lots of weigh , meaning huge presure on the surface of the feet , meaning sinking mechs x)

3) We are still in a position of weapon>armor , so like the light mechs of MWO mobile weapons live by mobility and the hope that that the armor will stop that one shell that hits it. Being a hard to miss target means certin death.

3 ) Construction materials , and more so actuators , even if we had neurohelmets to add a sence of balance and we did programe complexe movement algoritems so that it could walk and move like a human ( still confused why we would want that , as there are numerous better nature inspired designs with a lot more stability such as insects ) the presure on those ball or spherical bearings would be huge, like the tanks of old needeing tankers of fuel, mechs would need trucks full of actuators to trail behind them and like a formula racer, change them after every larger action.

Ei. Huge humanoid robots cool, but a very bad practical idea ... just as the insects use trahea systems to gain acces to oxigen to there blood, we can't use that due to our size and need lungs , just like that a giant warmachine would need to be different than a small one. And let's be frank , why do we evenneed someting like that , we are far more likely to use miniature drones to kill each other , as they will be precise, easy to manufacture and cheap in compareson to tanks and, lol, Mechs.

These carbon nanotube muscles would solve the cost, size, and weight problems facing mechs at the moment. They're really very interesting if you'd like more information. Also, the way I see it, the outline of tanks and mechs are both rectangular cubes. The tank's rectangle is on its side, while the mech's is on end. From the top tanks have a much bigger rectangle than mechs. The mech is only larger from the front. They both have equal area from the side. Plus, if you know about hitting a moving target, it'll make sense that an upright, taller target is more difficult to hit than an object that is shorter and thicker. Range is easy to account for (how much you raise the barrel) because it doesn't change much, so the height is going to be easy to adjust for no matter how large. Wind and speed changes are much more difficult to account for when leading a target, so the thin upright target will get hit less than the short, wide target. So the upright shape of the mech might be an advantage. Plus, with the Navy's interest in laser weaponry, it would be more advantageous to have them mounted higher to see over objects and have more range.

Edited by AWOL 01, 09 March 2015 - 02:20 PM.

[Mudhutwarrior]

No matter what we make there is always the power problem and we are pretty close to solving that . It's unlikely Skunk Works would stick its neck out if it didn't think it was feasible or had questions that it wouldn't be.

[AWOL 01]

Marack Drock, on 09 March 2015 - 10:19 AM, said:

..... yeah taller objects are harder to hit...... sure. When it is a mech the size of a tank and slower than a tank because it has several more moving parts like LEGS, then is going to be the biggest aircraft bombsite on the battlefield. Use logic man. An object that is thinner but taller is an easy target for infantry with RPGs and Tanks. The reason tanks are taken out is because of air. They are 20 feet long and 15 feet wide. An object 20 feet tall, 15 feet wide, and 11 feet long, is just as easy of a target to hit especially for: SSMs, ASMs, GSMs, and more (Guided to Surface missiles, Air to Surface missiles, Surface to Surface Missiles) all of these have locking capabilities and any guided missile will instantly take this thing out. How about RPGs? One good shot at the legs, and this thing is immobile waiting to be destroyed. What if it battles a tank? Tanks would move 30times faster and have just as much of an armament. One good shot from a tank and the mech is destroyed. In short mechs would become the new biggest man slaughter machine out there. One of those above low to the ground mechs is just waiting for an RPG or something worse. Mechs are not suited for real combat.

Give me proof of them being truly good for it. Not theory. In theory I could become President of the USA and get rid of our national debt. Everything works in theory. Barely do those theories work in practice.

Why do you assume it'll be slower? CNT muscles are as light as the wax they're coated in, can contract thousands of times stronger and faster than human muscle, and should be able to "heal" themselves within a decade or two. Because they work linearly they couldn't be used on tanks (they need rotation, not linear motion), so the obvious alternative is walking machines. A mech could be very small, even 14-15 feet, which is only a few feet taller than a tank but still much shorter. So slightly taller with a much smaller profile from the side. A higher vantage point for the aforementioned laser weaponry, which operates according to the weapon's line-of-sight (doesn't arc like ballistic weapons), which would be able to be used because CNT muscles operate on very little power, even human body heat or the sun's rays. So we have a fast, durable walking machine with firepower and armor because it's weight isn't devoted to movement systems.
It's funny how tank advocates always point out a mech's legs but forget the fact that a tank can be taken out be destroying one link in it's tread. I'm not saying mechs will be the end-all-be-all that they are in the Battletech Universe, but they would have their place once they are finally accepted as a useful machine, as airplanes and tanks were. They both had very rough beginnings and look where they are now.

Edited by AWOL 01, 09 March 2015 - 02:32 PM.

[Nik Reaper]

AWOL 01, on 09 March 2015 - 09:55 AM, said:

I wrote a paper on carbon nanotube muscles and they're amazing. They definitely meet the requirements for mech propulsion so check myomer off the list.

...

Sorry but the fact it is so big from the front , and the inherant instability of being upright , ei prone to falling negates almost every bonust to dificulty of shooting a moving stick instead of a brick + because mechs have more extruded parts they have more surface are needed to be covered and they have more moving parts wich are all a much larger viability then the advantage they provide.

PS. link the nanotube muscles article, seems like an interesting read.

[Nik Reaper]

AWOL 01, on 09 March 2015 - 02:31 PM, said:

...

A mech could be very small, even 14-15 feet, which is only a few feet taller than a tank but still much shorter. So slightly taller with a much smaller profile from the side. A higher vantage point for the aforementioned laser weaponry, which operates according to the weapon's line-of-sight (doesn't arc like ballistic weapons), which would be able to be used because CNT muscles operate on very little power, even human body heat or the sun's rays. So we have a fast, durable walking machine with firepower and armor because it's weight isn't devoted to movement systems.

...

And that is much of the point, a much smaller mech , likely not a bipedal design could be a useful weapon in rough terrain , but even if we could build 10+ m high real BT battlemechs we wouldn't do that as it is so very impractical, because of the afore mentioned reasons.

[Nik Reaper]

Marack Drock, on 09 March 2015 - 02:45 PM, said:

15 feet high is still the easiest ground target for infantry and other tanks. If it is not Bipedal then it will be quad meaning it will also be about 4 times as slow. So we are talking 10 MPH, 15 feet high and 10 feet wide....... yeah a barely moving target. My 4 year old cousin could blow that thing up with her eyes closed while hold a rifle that ways more than she does.

You do know that they made a robotic chetah that runs faster than a real chetah right?
It could move a lot faster ,just how did you come to a fact that more legs = less speed ?

Edited by Nik Reaper, 09 March 2015 - 02:51 PM.

[Nik Reaper]

Oki.. I see you are young , so here show me the wheels .. and

so next time do some research before you start writing complaints , not everything will be included in a topic.

Also these are proofs of concept, noone is saying that these will be running around with guns, and noone is saying this is the best we can do, with a big enough budget who knows where those could end up at....

Edited by Nik Reaper, 09 March 2015 - 02:59 PM.

[Nik Reaper]

Well of course wheels are better and more energy efficient , wich is why we are using them now... The only place where they aren't as good is where they can't be used, ei. rough terrain.

If BT creators were engineers and combained cool with practical they would have made mechs have a "wheel mode" to not taxe actuators when in transit and would use less energy while moving faster.

Also I would say that mechs of about 3m would be about max size for them to still be practical.
So yes, even if we could make a mech that had 4 legs and could run ~100 kph through woodland terrain at a hight of ~3m weighing at 10~20t , we still probly wouldn't do it for all the moving parts are an accident waiting to happen , but we actualy might be able to build it, it just wouldn't be the best option...

Note that I said proof of concept, if the industry wanted to spend as much as they spent on designing that tenk in to creating a runing robot , you bet it could to everyting on it's own...

Edited by Nik Reaper, 09 March 2015 - 03:16 PM.