That is probably why we don’t have star wars sandcrawler vehicle too.
Or even bigger http://img4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20080526215222/starwars/images/4/4b/Czerkacrawler.jpg
Some of these really big cool transport vehicles would do better in desert, less chance of it getting stuck but probably like Lemur866 saying it would take long time if it is moving 2 mph.
No, that understanding is not really correct.
Star Wars type landspeeders aren’t possible in the real world. At least not without discovering anti-gravity or some other exotic new technology.
More powerful fans or jets wouldn’t do the job, because that’s trying to use an axe when you really want a hammer.
Think of trying to hammer a nail with an axehead. Yes, it’s possible. An axe head is a large, heavy object. It’ll work. But it’s inefficient. Making a sharper axe doesn’t make it any better to use as a hammer. Instead, you want to use a hammer.
But in this case, the “hammer” for a Star Wars style landspeeder is a fundamentally different kind of technology that may not even be realizable.
Okay understand what you saying but I don’t understand the engineering or science of why fans or jets are bad choice. And does not really metter even if it is more powerful than what we have today even if it is 4 times or 8 times more powerful than what we have today.
You can make a heavier axe to use as a hammer. That doesn’t make it a hammer.
Think about why a car can make sharp turns. Or stop quickly. It has to do with friction against the ground. That allows a car to overcome inertia very quickly without introducing excessively high acceleration to compensate for poor friction.
Bald tires maneuver poorly. Worn out brake pads don’t stop cars quickly. The result is poor performance. Take that to an extreme, and you have a jet/fan controlled vehicle. Making your engine more powerful doesn’t improve your tires or brakes. And actually just makes things more dangerous for passengers unless you address the bald tires and bad brakes. “Braking” would be suddenly shifting to reverse and gunning your engine.
More powerful jets/fans are basically the same concept. You don’t have brakes or tires, so you are trying to compensate by making your engine more powerful and shifting to reverse. Basically, using an axe as a hammer.
That is, such a vehicle wouldn’t behave like a Star Wars landspeeder. It would simply turn/stop a bit “better” (for a given value of “better”) than what we have now but also be more dangerous and not fundamentally a correct solution.
Nope.
Fans, no matter how powerful or efficient, always require energy to keep the body of the vehicle off of the ground. Wheels require absolutely no energy to keep the body of the vehicle off of the ground.
As long as gravity exists, fans can’t possibly ever win this contest.
Have you ever tried to drive a really big heavy car, like say a van or a panel truck, in sand? Sand, the stuff that deserts are just full of?
CMC fnord!
Besides, it’s not like we don’t have a lot of stuff that has been predicted already.
“Why oh why oh why isn’t anyone working on these fancy inventions?!”
“Hey, look at the current work being done on this fancy invention!”
I was just thinking the other day we should have universal translators by now.
(And no, Google translate doesn’t count.)
Draws an ‘H’ on forehead
Look at me, I’mma hologram! Howdy, howdy, howdy!
Not to take away from your main point, which I don’t necessarily disagree with, but this quoted paragraph doesn’t make much sense. You’re jumbling together inertia, acceleration, and friction in a way that doesn’t make physical sense. I’m not exactly sure what point you are trying to make here.
I think that you are trying to say that a car is capable of using its brakes (which relies on friction) to stop, whereas an air-cushioned vehicle (or a boat, for that matter) is obligated to use reverse engine thrust to accomplish the same thing. However the end result (whether braking or reverse-thrusting) is the same: a large acceleration (or deceleration). That goes hand-in-hand with stopping quickly.
Why doesn’t it?
I was thinking more like a speaker/microphone device that you carry around with you. Just speak into the mic and out the other end comes whatever language you want.
I realized after the fact that it didn’t make a lot of sense. Too many mixed analogies or metaphors or whatever. Explaining even simple concepts to people is difficult when they want desperately to believe the reverse.
But yes, the main point I was trying to make was that a car has the advantage of tires on the ground and an air-cushioned vehicle doesn’t behave the same way. Reverse jets don’t behave like car brakes and there’s no real analogue to car brakes on such a vehicle. And that more powerful jets don’t change that.
That is, unless we come up with some exotic physics or resort to science fiction.
Can you elaborate on what you saying.
I think what he is saying inertia is more of a problem. That if a vehicle is traveling eastbound and red light or vehicle accident in front of you,:eek::eek::eek: that you would blast the engine to try to stop it, but find out the vehicle is now going westbound hitting the other vehicles. That with out brakes/friction you would have hard time controlling the vehicles and a more powerful engine would just be reversing faster.So if you are traveling eastbound 100 mph and vehicle accident in front just happen and with new powerful engine and you try to stop,:eek::eek::eek::eek: you would be gunning your engine finding you are reversing really fast going westbound hitting the other vehicles than stopping.
That cars and boats work really well because of friction but planes need more room to work with and more powerful engine would just reverse faster than stop.
I’m not sure may be AI running computer calculations can calculate the needed engine correction where human would put too much or not enough and never get the right amount.But than this would not be true landspeeder vehicle like in star wars. It would be driverless landspeeders.
Looks promising. I hope they will make progresses.
I don’t think anyone is thinking we are going to get star trek holodeck or the star trek EMH Doctor any time this century or even next century if at all. It is way beyond today’s technology. Same thing trying build big star trek enterprise star ship it is beyond today’s technology if it is even possible 1,000 years from now.
A star trek replicator is more possible than a star trek holodeck. At least in the lab they have moved molecules around and built stuff in lab. Only thing lacking is computer power and scaling it up. But at least they have made a toy car and a guitar on a molecules level. The problem is computer power is too crude to keep track of all the molecules and move all these molecules around to build any thing on big scale.
No, it’s not. Replicators are magic.
Turning energy to matter.
But moving molecules around to build stuff is sorta of replicator.
Called a molecular assembler. A molecular assembler is sorta like a replicator.
