KASASpace

Hmm, a tank usually will not roll well as the treads are designed to have as much traction as possible.......... Of course you might actually be able to conserver energy in the legged vehicle by using forward momentum to pick up the rear leg.

Actually, perhaps this would be the ONE case where building a ginormous vessel helps out. The gravity well could distort the laser enough that it misses or loses energy.

Extended table, or current? If extended, then unbihexium, as it is the center of the theoretical Island of Stability, which I'm quite sure Seaborg himself proposed. If current, then Hyrdogen. It is the simplest of all elements, and as the saying goes, "the best solution is often the simplest" It has many uses, from organic chemistry to rocketry to the fusion that powers Sol.

I am so so sorry, but I must say this: Alcubierre drive. It actually isn't FTL because you never move faster than light. I just beat the reasoning. BUT, in all seriousness, probably either Z-pinch fusion engines or solar sails. Or some combo of the two.

If range were so important, then why did the Luftwaffe have 5oo km on the Bf-109? Besides that, it would actually use a kind of battery being charged up for sprinting. Now, range is actually better because the motor doesn't need to be as big as 60+ ton tank's. It merely needs enough power to use pumps and small pistons for the hydraulics of the vehicle.

Okay, let me explain the reasoning for quicker reaction time: The cockpit is fighter-aircraft like, with a similar HUD because the cockpit is mounted on the torso, which is a turret and can thus turn in many directions. This HUD gives a great deal of information, and chances are tanks will not have such a HUD because only the gun barrel moves up and down, not the turret itself.

Yes, we must, but not now. With a government like this! the UN is horrible at what it does, as people still die and people are still ignored. Fusion rockets are really far away, and VASIMR just doesn't have the Isp for sufficient fractions of light speed. That's NEAR the speed of light, not one tenth.

You have to stiffen the leg, yes, but that is much less energy reducing then you might think. A simple hydraulic locking mechanism. Now, the missiles might just be moving faster than 700m/s, and might just be unguided. Plus there is ECM for ECM, you know that right?

The fact that we have a destiny. The fact that we must choose to accomplish that destiny. And the fact that that destiny, is that we will ascend up into the stars........... Basically human exploration. But in an interesting way. Would probably show them some pics of cool nebulae. Like Orion, OH yeah!

Umm, in the near future is called realistic fiction, as they actually are trying to DO a lot of the stuff you mentioned in the thread starter.

No, it would be using a pulsed explosion from a nuclear fusion bomb, not continuous laser initiated fusion.

Actually, yeah, come to think of it, walking is more efficient, maybe more so, than wheels. You see, wheels DO need to constantly act on the ground against friction, whereas a leg merely has to swing it across a distance and place the foot down a multitude of times. It requires less energy to move the leg hinges a little bit than to constantly rotate the heavy wheel. So, hey, it won't get speed, but that's not as important, because if you can outmaneuver tanks (like rotating the legs in place after hiding behind a building and almost instantly coming back out, surprising the tank and firing, say, a Javelin), go over rubble, and carry heavy loads, then you are all set. Plus, a tank's speed doesn't really matter, as it can only go as fast as the slowest in the convoy, which is usually how they go about things.

That would be worse, as it would be over 6 meters, in fact the Scorpion is bad period, the main gun reaches over cover, which basically just obliterates the ONE good advantage of tanks over mechs.

How many joules to move ~ 113 kilograms? How many joules to rotate ~ 25 kilograms? How many for ~10 kilograms? Answer these, and you will discover a great revelation.

You sir, are very knowledgeable. Of course if you try and chicken walk, that's a completely different story.

The shaft is very thin compared to the table and the glass. This will eventually cause problems with vibrations as you can never perfectly have the mass centered on the plate, some of it is leaning towards a certain side, and less of it the other, this difference causes the glass to move, and since it is rotating rapidly, it vibrates. If you got a smaller plate and glass, or instead of using a drive shaft used a gearing system, that might help.

Heck no! For one thing politics will kill it instantly. But tech wise, no. Perhaps not until we develop cryogenics to a point where humans can last many lifetimes. Now if you want to go generational, maybe..... maybe not...... not Of course we would need either a fusion drive or antimatter drive. Perhaps Orion NPP? Honestly, I think not. But we do need to go interplanetary.

How are you rotating the glass? On a stick like a shishkabob? (lord how do you spell that!) Or completely? Because if on a kabob it will eventually start gyrating due to the fact that not all the glass is getting accelerated at once. That's what I know.

I am very knowledgeable about this subject as a matter of fact. (I know, Kryten, you don't believe me:rolleyes:) Wernher von Braun actually had an extreme involvement with the military. You see, in **** Germany stuff like launching your own rockets wasn't legal. But Wernher saw a way through that, he and a team of people, (yes, team) presented the idea of rockets as weapons. They got limited approval and built the A1. It messed up rather awesomely, although it was really just a bad placement of the gyro. So the team goes on under Dornberger? I think it was him, I'm more than likely wrong, though. And they build the A2, essentially the same but with better Gyro placement. it works well. They build the A3, bigger, works extremely well. Then they come up on the A4, and it becomes the world's first ballistic missile. Now, Wernher wanted to go to space, and the A9/A10 was magnificent.... So, think before you type.

If it was the upper stage than if the Argentinians knew anything they would either do all up tests or just statics. Because upper stages don't have TWRs of 1 or greater. Generally much less.

Perhaps if they could do OTRAG.......... CHEAP ROCKETS FOR THE WIN!

Hey, you DIDN'T pay attention.

Hmm, tanks have only really one thing going for them, low to the ground, whereas the mech has the opposite. Otherwise they are fairly equal, and if put into combat they would work together to build on each other's weaknesses and use each other's advantages. Tank: 1.) firepower 2.) Low to the ground Mech: 1.) enough firepower to take out light to medium armored vehicles 2.) can allow for greater infantry mobility, picking them up and putting them on the second floor of buildings, or safely evacuating a team on the top of a small building in truth, they would be a quite advantageous combination.

Yes, but it takes up less space in the box, thus needing less armor because it actually isn't as likely to get hit, as only one axis is a problem for the mech, whereas the tank has two axes where it's dimensions would be problematic.

1.) I already posted that the Abrams takes up more space. Please pay attention from now on, Mr. Crown....... 2.) The legs are armored, but there is nothing else in the legs except a limited skeleton, so it is still light compared to the tank treads having to support a whopping 60+ tons! (Abrams) 3.) Bicycles are biologically AND mechanically powered. Bad comparison, because a gear and chain system increased speed. 4.) Perhaps, but it is getting closer and closer.... 5.) Repeat the question then. 1.) No, they aren't as these representations are only representing the main bodies of the respective vehicles, counting legs in the mech. 2.) Yes, but the tank will eventually get hit, and it is more likely to be critical to the tank. 3.) Yes, but it is mesh and can barely move compared to my flex armor, which moves to help even more accommodate the blast. 4.) Actually, hits won't affect it, as all there is leading from the primary torso (75% of it's volume is the engine, the rest for the autocannon) a small limb that is flexible mounted on a type of shoulder which itself mounts a Javelin launcher 5.) It doesn't take cover into account at all for both vehicles. However the tank is wider and longer, so if the tank is caught behind, say a 2 story building longwise it is almost certainly doomed, or width-wise even, as it would need more turning time, whereas the mech can turn it's legs easily in place.