Valkyrie´s concept

[KingNor]

I wish movies have something reality not always has: a sense. If I wanted reality of war, I would have become a soldier.

FV

eh.. good point.

as for the fast packs though. the valk runs on nuclear power right? so what do you mean about needing fastpacks because of fuel?

Nuclear subs cannot fly in space.

vinnie

you saying the valks burn fuel in space?

i'm still confused, as far as i understood the valks didn't need fuel at all.

please be blunt and obvious, i'm totally missing the point.

[KingNor]

I say GERWALK mode will take a lot more....um....how to say it.....programming and learning to figure out to get it to work right. (yea, that's it!) anybody agree? or do you guys think that the Battroid will take more stuff to do?

its said in the show that the gerwalk opperates like a fighter, i guess that means the throttle controls the legs:

minor throttle means walk forward, more throttle means the valk lifts up on its leg engines and pushes forward with the backpack thrusters (lift gained through the wings aswell as the leg engines)

approaching full throttle the wings start to provide more lift and the legs start to come up into the "fighter" position to add additional thrust and speed.

all other controls i asume work the same even when not moving, pull back on the stick and the valk looks up, push forward and it looks down. push the stick left/right and the valk will roll/lean as far as it can. the pedals would still turn the valk.

this mode probably very automated, with the plane figureing out how to over come obsticals with the pilot just telling it where to go.

[JB0]

I wish movies have something reality not always has: a sense. If I wanted reality of war, I would have become a soldier.

FV

eh.. good point.

as for the fast packs though. the valk runs on nuclear power right? so what do you mean about needing fastpacks because of fuel?

Nuclear subs cannot fly in space.

vinnie

you saying the valks burn fuel in space?

i'm still confused, as far as i understood the valks didn't need fuel at all.

please be blunt and obvious, i'm totally missing the point.

He's saying you can't just say "it's nuclear, it can go anywhere" and leave it.

The Valkyrie may be powered by fusion, but it still has to carry mass to throw out for propulsion in space.

If you know of another way for it to maneuver, I recommend patenting it immediatly. You could live off the royalties for a lifetime. And you'd get a Nobel prize, too.

[Gabriel]

you saying the valks burn fuel in space?

i'm still confused, as far as i understood the valks didn't need fuel at all.

please be blunt and obvious, i'm totally missing the point.

"Reactors (or Reaction Drives):

These systems heat internally carried reaction-mass (air is substituted in an atmosphere) in some sort of reaction chamber/hot fusion reactor and vent it out from exhaust ports. This propulsion system has a maximum total delta-v (change of velocity) limited by the craft's onboard fuel supply. Thrusts must be kept track of using flight vectors and position coordinates. This is fairly complicated, but is the only way for these craft to move in space. These sorts of engines are used as the secondary thrusters on large spacecraft, and are the sole propulsion system on mecha. This is why, for example, the Valkyrie carries fuel tanks (see above)."

From here.

Some other good info there too.