Star Wars & Sc-Fi Talk

K

kyanges

Junior Member
AssassinsMace said:
Yes I agree but it's JJ Abrams so he could have changed things to his liking.
Click to expand...

Definitely.

On a related note:

The healing of the daughter also hints at super powers of the Gary Mitchell type.

And the behind the glass scene is reminiscent of the Where no Man has Gone Before episode as well as The Wrath of Khan movie:

The blonde lady in the trailer also corresponds with the lady in the screenshot here. Similar uniforms and haircuts too.

tumblr_meu62xL05A1rpmwjko1_500.jpg


tumblr_meu62xL05A1rpmwjko2_500.jpg



Got to applaud the ad team for walking the tightrope in terms of references.


AssassinsMace said:
Like the Prime Directive I mention in an earlier post... He definitely doesn't know what the Prime Directive is all about because the scene they show violates the Prime Directive while they keep mentioning in the dialog for them to not violate it.
Click to expand...

I give that a pass for now since there's enough wiggle room to say that Kirk and pals are down on the planet doing something, but haven't let the inhabitants of the planet know yet. The wiggle room will shrink as more details of the plot are revealed, but for now, you get to slide JJ. :p .
 
Last edited:
AssassinsMace

AssassinsMace

Lieutenant General
kyanges said:
I give that a pass for now since there's enough wiggle room to say that Kirk and pals are down on the planet doing something, but haven't let the inhabitants of the planet know yet. The wiggle room will shrink as more details of the plot are revealed, but for now, you get to slide JJ. :p .
Click to expand...

Well the only way I can give them an excuse because it's happened before is that someone else violated the Prime Directive and the Enterprise crew is there to right the wrong. In the clip Kirk and McCoy, in covers, are being chased by the inhabitants who resemble those South American tribes that have no contact with the modern world. Since this was the opener introducing the Enterprise crew, I don't think it was anymore than it is being they're saving an indigenous race from a natural disaster. Unless the Klingons are the cause but then they wouldn't bother with blowing up a volcano just to kill off this primitive species.
 
Equation

Equation

Lieutenant General
AssassinsMace said:
I wasn't commenting on your post. Just making a general comment about how some people think entertainment parallels what's needed in reality. And mechs wouldn't be good on a battlefield.
Click to expand...

You're right, but what if the mechs are made to move fluid and smoothly like and infantry soldier? Than that would be useful for urban and deep jungle warfare. It can be armed to ambush tanks and APCs and carry heavy engineer equipment and explosives to clear a path for the armored units in open fields. Not to mention the psychological effect onto the opposing army seeing their own buddies being ripped apart or stepped on by these large, metallic fast moving robots.
 
AssassinsMace

AssassinsMace

Lieutenant General
Equation said:
You're right, but what if the mechs are made to move fluid and smoothly like and infantry soldier? Than that would be useful for urban and deep jungle warfare. It can be armed to ambush tanks and APCs and carry heavy engineer equipment and explosives to clear a path for the armored units in open fields. Not to mention the psychological effect onto the opposing army seeing their own buddies being ripped apart or stepped on by these large, metallic fast moving robots.
Click to expand...

Well I'm going by the realities of such technology. Most of what you point to needs a powerful energy source to do all those things. A source that would probably be not practical for a mech because if you have a weapon that can penetrate and destroy it with one shot, there would be no point in making a mech. What's the point of a mech except maybe psychological like you mentioned. But if you can destroy it with one shot like from a cheaper less sophisticated platform like a man-portable or a tank gun or from an aircraft, a mech serves no purpose. All that heavy armor to give it protection is going to make it slow. Certainly slower than other cheaper platforms. Given all that on a battlefield, the advantage won't be who has the biggest most powerful mech. It's going to be stealth. A man that can hide. A tank can be low profile and carry an equivalent weapon a mech has that can destroy it. An aircraft can move around fast.

There's a balance in all things that plays out. You get a power source that can have your mech do all those things, you can also have a power source to make things to counter it without all the sophisticated technology needed to make a mech. If you discover some new material that is stronger and light for armor, you also have a weapon that can be made of the same material to penetrate. If it's nuclear power, why not just make a simpler nuclear bomb to blow it up and not bother wasting money that goes with all the technology in making a mech. Destroying a mech will do the same thing if it's nuclear powered.

The fact is what's the purpose of creating a facsimile with human articulation? You might have a robot replace what a human can do and not in combat primarily. But why a giant mech? Maybe for construction but not for combat. When it comes down to it, it will be destroyed easily by lesser means so why make it in the first place?
 
Last edited:
Equation

Equation

Lieutenant General
AssassinsMace said:
Well I'm going by the realities of such technology. Most of what you point to needs a powerful energy source to do all those things. A source that would probably be not practical for a mech because if you have a weapon that can penetrate and destroy it with one shot, there would be no point in making a mech. What's the point of a mech except maybe psychological like you mentioned. But if you can destroy it with one shot like from a cheaper less sophisticated platform like a man-portable or a tank gun or from an aircraft, a mech serves no purpose. All that heavy armor to give it protection is going to make it slow. Certainly slower than other cheaper platforms. Given all that on a battlefield, the advantage won't be who has the biggest most powerful mech. It's going to be stealth. A man that can hide. A tank can be low profile and carry an equivalent weapon a mech has that can destroy it. An aircraft can move around fast.

There's a balance in all things that plays out. You get a power source that can have your mech do all those things, you can also have a power source to make things to counter it without all the sophisticated technology needed to make a mech. If you discover some new material that is stronger and light for armor, you also have a weapon that can be made of the same material to penetrate. If it's nuclear power, why not just make a simpler nuclear bomb to blow it up and not bother wasting money that goes with all the technology in making a mech. Destroying a mech will do the same thing if it's nuclear powered.

The fact is what's the purpose of creating a facsimile with human articulation? You might have a robot replace what a human can do and not in combat primarily. But why a giant mech? Maybe for construction but not for combat. When it comes down to it, it will be destroyed easily by lesser means so why make it in the first place?
Click to expand...


I agreed, I was thinking of a much smaller mechs that are 9 -12 ft. tall that can be operated by a pilot or remote control that can be integrated into the platoon size element units for fire support and shielding against small arms fire during tactical maneuvers to the objective.
 
P

paintgun

Senior Member
AssassinsMace said:
Well I'm going by the realities of such technology. Most of what you point to needs a powerful energy source to do all those things. A source that would probably be not practical for a mech because if you have a weapon that can penetrate and destroy it with one shot, there would be no point in making a mech. What's the point of a mech except maybe psychological like you mentioned. But if you can destroy it with one shot like from a cheaper less sophisticated platform like a man-portable or a tank gun or from an aircraft, a mech serves no purpose. All that heavy armor to give it protection is going to make it slow. Certainly slower than other cheaper platforms. Given all that on a battlefield, the advantage won't be who has the biggest most powerful mech. It's going to be stealth. A man that can hide. A tank can be low profile and carry an equivalent weapon a mech has that can destroy it. An aircraft can move around fast.

There's a balance in all things that plays out. You get a power source that can have your mech do all those things, you can also have a power source to make things to counter it without all the sophisticated technology needed to make a mech. If you discover some new material that is stronger and light for armor, you also have a weapon that can be made of the same material to penetrate. If it's nuclear power, why not just make a simpler nuclear bomb to blow it up and not bother wasting money that goes with all the technology in making a mech. Destroying a mech will do the same thing if it's nuclear powered.

The fact is what's the purpose of creating a facsimile with human articulation? You might have a robot replace what a human can do and not in combat primarily. But why a giant mech? Maybe for construction but not for combat. When it comes down to it, it will be destroyed easily by lesser means so why make it in the first place?
Click to expand...

i find your lack of imagination, disturbing

imagine a power source pack, more robust and simpler than a mechanical internal combustion engine, and higher energy density than the average hydrogen fuel cells while also more reactive at the same time

human soldiers will be obsolete
 
K

kyanges

Junior Member
paintgun said:
i find your lack of imagination, disturbing

imagine a power source pack, more robust and simpler than a mechanical internal combustion engine, and higher energy density than the average hydrogen fuel cells while also more reactive at the same time

human soldiers will be obsolete
Click to expand...

If I'm understanding him correctly, he's saying that any advancement that makes a humanoid mech more feasible would be equally, and in many ways more usefully applicable, on a more traditional armored vehicle like a tank or an armored car. Or it would be more effectively applied in a counter to said mech.

For example, any breakthrough in mechanical reliability that makes robotic walking more robust and practical, would likely make an even simpler form of locomotion, like tank treads or wheels, even more reliable in comparison.

Or, in this case, a super power source that allows for an iron man style robot would also "super charge" the abilities of a traditional vehicle. If the power source lets the mech carry thicker armor, then it stands to reason that any tank with such a power source would still be able to carry even more armor than that mech.

The point being that any advancement in humanoid mechs wouldn't occur in a vacuum, and developments there would trickle through to other fields, which would reduce the gap between the new mech breakthrough, and previous vehicles.


I mean, any humanoid mech of the type we're talking about isn't going to dodge an anti-tank missile any better than a regular tank, and any tank, because of physics, and assuming they're using the same tech as said mech, will always be better equipped to handle that missile.
 
Last edited:
AssassinsMace

AssassinsMace

Lieutenant General
paintgun said:
i find your lack of imagination, disturbing

imagine a power source pack, more robust and simpler than a mechanical internal combustion engine, and higher energy density than the average hydrogen fuel cells while also more reactive at the same time

human soldiers will be obsolete
Click to expand...

Well there's imagination and then there's the hard cold face of reality. Imagine a power source? How about show me this power source? It's far easier to destroy than to create. Meaning you make a mech and someone will be able to make something to counter it. So what's the point of having a human articulating mech when all you have to do is place the weapon that you create for a mech on a less expensive uncomplicated platform like on a tank and it'll do the same job. A mech doesn't really give you an advantage.

Like I've mentioned before in here in the movies you see space battles when capital ships are broadsiding one another. It looks great for a movie but the fact is in reality if you end up broadsiding with the enemy, a major failure in defenses has occurred. The enemy should've been destroyed way beyond visual range. Or look at the account of the end of Osama Bin Laden. The media made it a forty-minute fire fight with Taliban and Al Qaeda terriorists every where. But the fact is if they planned it correctly and by the numbers it should have been and was in and out very quickly with little to no resistance. On film that wouldn't look spectacular. Interesting to see what the movie coming out this week portrays it.

Mechs in movies are a whole lot different from reality.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top