Would giant robots be any more feasible in space? I mean all

Without legs, maybe.

>>15854140
I guess so but legs would be even more ridiculous there.

File: legs are for show.jpg (185KB, 372x426px) Image search: [Google]

185KB, 372x426px

>>15854161

File: Rb-79c.jpg (35KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 400x400px

>>15854140
They are much more realistic in space than most of the spacecraft you see in sci-fi.

>>15854149
>>15854161
Have fun having two fewer appendages to take advantage of conservation of momentum. AMBAC isn't a meme.

>>15854445
>not wanting legs solely for the express purpose of landing inside space colonies and subjugating the local population

>>15854445
You don't need 4 limbs to take advantage of AMBAC.

>>15854462
Every limb helps ya dingus.

>>15854463
Every limb also adds more mass. And being shaped like a human leg isn't needed either.

File: bubble-fighter.jpg (56KB, 567x567px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 567x567px

>>15854293
I was thinking something like the Ball would be most realistic, though I think space fighters with higher-powered drive systems would be ideal for dogfights.

>>15854473
>dogfights

No such thing in a Newtonian zero gravity space. Heck, dogfights don't even exist in atmosphere, there is absolutely no reason for them to exist in the void.

>>15854486
You'll have to explain it to me. As far as I know changing relative position quickly should always help with evading enemy fire.

>>15854494
You can't evade a laser. Even if they somehow couldn't be made, a missile is at a massive advantage over you as they have much less mass to accelerate at some new vector than you do. Missile evansion works very rarely but it exists solely because of the aerodynamics involved. In space, you go from almost certain death to an unavoidable casualty.
Another problem is that fighters still need to hold the crapload of fuel needed for such extreme manouvering alongside life support facilities and shit. So you can't be small and the more manouverable you want to get, the worse is gets.

Piloted space craft is not an option and once you remove the pilot, the spacecraft becomes nothing more than an oversized missile.

>>15854445

I'd say that AMBAC as Gundam portrays it is a meme, except Gundam rarely actually portrays units using AMBAC in the first place. It does happen on occasion but most of the time they just move however they want. The idea you can use AMBAC to fine tune movement in a combat situation when you'll have to be constantly using all your limbs to react to various developments and variables is silly though.

>>15854149
Depends on the unit I think.

If its a unit that is defending a space station/colony and will be landing frequently, some kind of landing legs to take the impact from touch down, just to avoid smashing the unit on the colony wall, would be possible.

>>15854509
I imagine lasers would still be limited by target-tracking, it must be possible to move out of the path of a laser. Also, we must consider how the technology might evolve as measures and countermeasures are developed.

>>15854249
Zeong is my waifu

>>15854516
It's generally limited to the higher budget stuff. Animation costs money.

ultra realistic space combat is the most boring shit ever since it'll be over way too quick and fought at very long ranges with unmanned ships/etc

>>15854894
What about once sufficient countermeasures are developed to force visual-range combat.

>>15854445
>AMBAC isn't a meme
Yes, it is.
IRL satellites use inertia for fine movement, but all you actually need is small internal flywheels, not flailing limbs.
It's one of those things where they decided they wanted limbs and then came up with an excuse for it. It fits, sure. Limbs enable AMBAC, but AMBAC does not require limbs. There are easier and more precise ways of doing that.

>>15854455
>>not wanting legs solely for the express purpose of landing inside space colonies and subjugating the local population
Well you could be landing to liberate said space colony from the other guys subjugating giant robot army...

>>15854726
Only if you preempt the laser firing. We're talking about a death beam moving at the speed of light.

>>15854140
Mechs would be more useful for warfare on hostile planets like Mars.

The lower gravity on a planet like Mars also means square cube law is less of a problem.

>>15854726
The laser moves at speed of light. You have no way of detecting it before it hits you

>>15855774
That's the idea.
>>15855863
You evade by being out of the way before it fires and then staying out of the way.

>>15855863
You can detect a target-lock. They have to train scanning equipment on you before firing.

>>15855993

No, they don't. Lasers are functionally instantaneous death beams that can be fired continuously for at least a few seconds; you could fire when you feel you're reasonably close to hitting someone and then lead the beam (or the target) that last little bit.

File: 1503982243400.gif (120KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 500x281px

Cant wait for someone to figure out a way to make mechs possible (through something like artifical muscle fiber made from diamonds) and all you faggots have to swallow your own words.

>>15856370

Will you swallow yours when it doesn't happen then?

>>15856381
Sure, but who says it wont happen? You never know, so I wont ever have to since we can never be sure.

>>15856390

Who says it will?

File: 1503971415595.gif (739KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

739KB, 500x281px

>>15856392
Beyond the point. You fucked up accepting this contract, Anon. Its impossible for you to come out on top, I already won.

>>15856399

Not really, I never accepted in the first place for a start. Questioning a stipulation is not acceptance. More than that though, you still haven't said how you know it will eventually happen, or why it's more likely to happen than not to happen. I'll never know, but then neither will you. It could eventually happen, but it could never happen. It's not explicitly impossible, but it's not explicitly possible either. Anything you say I could just change very slightly and repeat back essentially.

>>15854140
Please don't ask stupid questions that can easily be answered by either lurking the fuck more, reading supplementary material like a wiki, or just watching the damn show. You didn't even specify what you mean by "giant robot". Did you mean specifically mobile suits, or smaller mechs like ATs, or gigantic as fuck robots like gunbuster?

>>15854509
>once you remove the pilot, the spacecraft becomes nothing more than an oversized missile.

This is a retarded assertion. No one things of drones or treats them as the equivalent of a missile.

File: VF-1S_Battroid.gif (95KB, 589x900px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 589x900px

>>15856441
I mean anything that's bigger than 5 meters tall and looks vaguely humanoid. The question was vague for a reason.

And all I've learned from lurking on this board is that it doesn't matter what the topic is, there's a large and eager population ready to shitpost about it

>>15855705
I learned something today.

... But what about limbs AND flywheels? Would that allow more precision than just flywheels?

>>15856262
>It's easy to keep a beam trained on a rapidly moving target, even when they are close and constantly changing direction.

Ok.

>>15858272

> soldiers need target locks on pistols and in all vehicles to hit anything and it's impossible to lead or follow a target without computer software to help

OK.

>>15854140
The legs and head would be pointless but a torso and arms would be practical, if overdesigned. It wouldn't be any more practical than a cube with a couple of manipulators on it.

But yeah, a full human shaped robo would be feasible but offer no real advantages over a simpler, cheaper design.

>>15857710
...No. Of course not. Clumsy limbs are just going to make movements far less precise. Wheels are simpler and more predictable.

>>15858460
It's kinda funny that the Ball is actually a good design.

>>15858475
When will we get an AU entirely based around the ball concept and various variations and deviations stemming from it? Could be harder sci-fi than most Gundam. Would be cool. Probably too much of a curveball though for it to really get greenlit.

>>15862678
Heavy Object?

File: BALLGUY!.png (339KB, 743x883px) Image search: [Google]

339KB, 743x883px

>>15862678
>ball concept and various variations and deviations stemming from it? Could be harder sci-fi than most Gundam. Would be cool. Probably too much of a curveball though for it to really get greenlit.
This is why we need an American-focused Build Fighters sequel; SO I CAN UNLEASH THE BALLGUY!

>>15862688
Not really what I'm talking about I was more thinking space combat in small spherical fighting craft of some kind designed to traverse space and shit, that sort of thing. You could have big ships too obviously but the Balls would basically be the Mobile Suits in this situation.

File: ball.jpg (770KB, 1450x2048px) Image search: [Google]

770KB, 1450x2048px

>>15862678
>too much of a curveball
>curveball
>ball
yoooooooooo

>>15854140
> i'm 12 and don't understand how ordinance do

>>15854894
Fuck you relativistic combat is radical. Watch Starship operators

>>15862678
various variations and deviations deviating

The "dodge time" for a lightspeed laser is about a quarter of a second at 40,000km. That's including the round-trip time to get a radar ping off the target, by the way. At the distance of the Earth to the moon that time is ~2 seconds.

>>15864329
Is it even feasible for a laser to take an entire vessel out of action in the first place? Remember a laser must put at least as much heat energy onto itself as it does to the target; that energy may be well focused but it is nevertheless strictly limited. Assume we're talking about a ship-bound laser and not some kind of huge fortification here.

>>15864439
For combat between major vessels, no. But if a capital ship is engaging single-person space fighters or "mobile suits" the amount of radiated heat becomes much more manageable.

Ship to ship combat would be the domain of kinetic missiles, kinetic weapons like rail or coil guns, and the ever-exciting casaba howitzer (A nuclear shaped-charge warhead that produces a laser-like particle beam of atomic death.)

Never mind combat, giant robots might be necessary for almost all activities in space. The space suits used today by NASA and others for EVA are hideously awkward and vulnerable to all sorts of hazards, and if you want to go anywhere except low earth orbit for long periods of time you'll almost certainly be wanting much more radiation and micrometeorite protection.

In the end, the only reason you would want a giant humanoid robot in space is almost the same as to why you would want one on earth. For utility. Not combat. Though complex and not entirely on the practical side, hook it up to a piloting system that mimics your movements and you get an intuitive interface that allows the layman to do a variety of complicated operations precicely.

File: dava-newman-01.jpg (426KB, 1000x979px) Image search: [Google]

426KB, 1000x979px

>>15865632

You do not wear a huge bulky suit during EVAs for radiation or micro-meteorite protection. Buildings protect against those, not EVA suits. EVA suits try to mitigate the damage for either of those things, at best and EVA's are generally planned to minimize how long someone will need to be doing a space walk or to be in a protected zone of some kind (like low Earth orbit) so as to help further reduce chances of anything happening. When something does pierce a suit during an EVA then the suit is engineered to maximize survivability so the astronaut can get back in to station or craft, not to stop the impact from piercing at all since doing so would make the suit so big, bulky and awkward as to be unfeasible.

Putting someone in a giant robot just for EVA is trading one set of problems (possible safety hazards) for a whole other set of problems (giant robots would have difficulty doing fine work and be complex both to repair and operate). More likely someone would simply have some kind of space forklift or constructor, which would probably be smaller and less complex given that it wouldn't have legs for a start. And even then they'd probably still need to exit the vehicle regularly to work on smaller or more delicate things.

Also, while EVA suits are bulky at present they probably won't be for long. MIT are working on a new generation of suits that is much more flexible and less bulky, while Boeing and Space X are presenting their own. Here's MITs EVA suit, which they've been working on with years.

File: tigergrass-graphic.jpg (99KB, 985x493px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 985x493px

>>15865990

And here's Boeings, which isn't as slim or simple, but is probably closer to production because it's relatively closer to the current ones.

>>15865994

That, or as many space scientists have suggested in the past, people will be replaced by unmanned vehicles of various kinds for many things in space, including repair work, because people just don't do that well there.

All this space talk made me reinstall Kerbal Space Program.

>>15855695
No, because countermeasures can't do such thing. Jets for example have flares, chaff, ECM, stealth, etc. meant to protect them against missile. But the existence of the countermeasures doesn't mean that air combat with missiles are now obsolete and everyone goes back to old school dogfighting, especially when missiles are continuously being developed to better defeat the countermeasures. The same will apply to space combat; countermeasures will be developed so that a theoretical starship may have more survivability and can stay in the fight longer, but it won't radically change how combat is done.

>>15865990
>EVA suits try to mitigate the damage for either of those things, at best and EVA's are generally planned to minimize how long someone will need to be doing a space walk or to be in a protected zone of some kind (like low Earth orbit) so as to help further reduce chances of anything happening.

As missions become more ambitious there will inevitably arise situations where that kind of precaution is unavailable- you can't always just go and do all your maintenance in LEO. Plus the easier, quicker and more flexible your access to human labour is, the better you are able to react to unforseen problems and sudden dangers. A worker operating through a robot can scratch his nose and eat his lunch in perfect comfort and work for much longer than someone wearing a thin pressure suit which is bound to be uncomfortable in unexpected ways. Maintenance is not necessarily any worse than a spacesuit either, which is much more likely to kill someone every time it breaks.
Obviously such a robot wouldn't look anything like a gundam or be quite so giant, and it would probably make more sense to operate it remotely from a safe location in most cases, but I still think it could end up being something pretty cool.

Well, I guess a more realistic space utility device might end up simply being a remote controlled legless robot of generally human size. All the benefits of the human's familiarity with the interface, no risks to the operator, comfortable to use for extended periods of time and easy to stash. Only downside to it would probably be maintenance.

Reminder that the legs are best for kicking

>>15866060

> Maintenance is not necessarily any worse than a spacesuit either

Yes, it is. A giant robot suit of armor with indirect controls will always be more labor intensive and complicated than a contemporary human sized one the operator wears. A giant robot will be more comfortable, but so will any vehicle, not just larger human shaped ones.

>>15854249
This makes sense.