StarDestroyer.Net BBS

unbeataBULL wrote: somehow, i can't grasp the idea that after a 25 millenia, wires are still the best things out there, for their cost.

perhaps the concept will be easier to grasp if you consider that after thousands of years of civilization, we have yet to develop a suitable, for its cost, replacement for the wheel. unless you plan to have magical hovering chairs for in every office. or whatnot.

or the fork. for that matter.

it's so much primitive tech, it's just basic realities of life you can't run away from even with uber-technology.

you might as well ask why we have "primitive" mechanical toggle switches on table fans when we could definately make some sort of fancy-smancy electronic pressure sensor to activate it.

Cpl Kendall wrote:

Robert Walper wrote: Molecular bonding?

Whats molecular bonding?

There is molecular "stuff" in the Star Wars universe.

Body Armor
http://www.theforce.net/swenc/entrydesc ... arch=16685

Monomolecular Blade
http://www.theforce.net/swenc/entrydesc ... arch=16736

I also remember a prison armored with Molecular bonded metal in a Han Solo story.

perhaps the concept will be easier to grasp if you consider that after thousands of years of civilization, we have yet to develop a suitable, for its cost, replacement for the wheel.

that's a good point. however, i should say that we have discovered flight as a much faster mode of transportation (though still not as cost-effective for small-scale operations, i.e. driving to grandma's house in the mini-van). plus, SW doesn't use wheels anymore.

i was unaware of nanites that already existed in EU. my mistake. however, i still say that bonding things on an atomic or moleuclar level would be stronger than just welding or bolts.

unbeataBULL wrote:

perhaps the concept will be easier to grasp if you consider that after thousands of years of civilization, we have yet to develop a suitable, for its cost, replacement for the wheel.

that's a good point. however, i should say that we have discovered flight as a much faster mode of transportation (though still not as cost-effective for small-scale operations, i.e. driving to grandma's house in the mini-van). plus, SW doesn't use wheels anymore.

i was unaware of nanites that already existed in EU. my mistake. however, i still say that bonding things on an atomic or moleuclar level would be stronger than just welding or bolts.

Wheels are actually still used, both in canon and in EU materials. The Imperial Mouse droids rely entirely on wheels for their locomotion, and astromech droids of various designations (R2, R5, etc.) use wheels to supplement their walking legs. For an EU example, there's the Juggernaut, a wheeled forerunner of the AT-AT, one that might even appear in ROTS (though I won't be checking spoiler threads to verify or disprove that).

Also, remember that welding is something that produces bonding at both the molecular and atomic levels. Anything beyond that would produce a bond stronger than the materials being bonded. Mike Wong might slap me down for saying this without being professionally qualified to do so, but I suspect that, structurally, a bond stronger than the materials being bonded together is not any stronger than the bonded materials that will fail regardless of the superior strength of the bonding material. You can bond two blocks of Jell-O together with steel nails, but...

The Juggernaut is in ROTS. A wheel bike also makes an appearance (it´s a giant wheel with driver-seat on one side and a twin-barreled cannon on the other.

The Hailfire Droids in AOTC have giant wheels as well.

my mistake. wheels are used to bypass shielding, aren't they? something the regular speeder can't do. just like legs.

unbeataBULL wrote:

perhaps the concept will be easier to grasp if you consider that after thousands of years of civilization, we have yet to develop a suitable, for its cost, replacement for the wheel.

that's a good point. however, i should say that we have discovered flight as a much faster mode of transportation (though still not as cost-effective for small-scale operations, i.e. driving to grandma's house in the mini-van). plus, SW doesn't use wheels anymore.

i was unaware of nanites that already existed in EU. my mistake. however, i still say that bonding things on an atomic or moleuclar level would be stronger than just welding or bolts.

perhaps you have noticed modern airplanes taxi and take off using wheels.

There's also something called "redundency"...

unbeataBULL wrote: another thing i found absent is extensive genetic manipulation of clones. why weren't they made with the strength of a big silverback gorilla (if they were still known about)? or enhanced reflexes? cost maybe? i'm not so sure. we can already splice the genes of fish and plants, and create plants resistant to certain diseases.

Because there's always tradeoffs to genetic manipulation; just because you have advanced genetics, or even perfect control of genetics, doesn't mean you can upgrade humans to significantly beyond their existing physical limits.

i lust dont think that any replacement has been significantly better enough to completely eliminate the use of lower-tech solutions.

its the same reason mecha will never exist-any job a humanoid robot can do dould be done with a wheeled machine or one with flight capabilities.

I kinda figured they peaked out. Maybe they've reached the limits of what they, as beings, can learn and conceive of and beyond that is a complexity that they simply cant reach, maybe they could do better, they have the resources or whatever, but the math and science and physics to build some uber-turbolaser or hyperdrive would be impossible to even compute or something. Others have mentioned this, i just figured i'd throw in my two cents.

I am not sure if they "peaked out". Its just that some notion of means/end and cost/benefit is involved. I like alot of SW tech for exactly the reason that some people think it seems primitive. Alot of scifi is based on the false notion that any solution to a problem that is more technically sophisticated is the better solution because it is more technically sophisticated, without any regard for whether it makes any sense to do it that way, or is a meaningful improvement.

Ex= "we will not need washing machines in the future since nano-laundry bots will remove the dirt one molecule at a time."

I had a friend who couldnt believe that Aunt Beru was using what looked like steamers and blenders to prepare food. But its hard to beat the blender when it comes to blending things. What should she have been using? Blend-o-Bots?

domestic devices do seem to haver a longer technological life-span than military devices. no one is planning onreplacing the oven, a device centuries old, just yet (though we have advanced from wood, to gas to electric).

on the other hand, no one still rides horses to battle either. its all tanks and airplanes, with infantry only to secure cities.

now that i think about it, star wars isn't necessarily just using primitive tech. a stardestroyer is hardly primitive. just some aspects seem out of date with others. why does C3PO move so akwardly when trade federation battle droids are so smooth? why isn't terra-forming a commonly seen process when they can already synthesize water (Bounty Hunter Wars, book II: Slave Ship)?

unbeataBULL wrote:why does C3PO move so akwardly when trade federation battle droids are so smooth? why isn't terra-forming a commonly seen process when they can already synthesize water (Bounty Hunter Wars, book II: Slave Ship)?

Cost versus application.

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:

unbeataBULL wrote:why does C3PO move so akwardly when trade federation battle droids are so smooth? why isn't terra-forming a commonly seen process when they can already synthesize water (Bounty Hunter Wars, book II: Slave Ship)?

Cost versus application.

And 3P0 has to interact with humans on a regular basis. The smooth movement of battledroids could be considered 'creepy'. People who deal with droids a lot want droids to look and act like droids. There's a whole branch of psychology that deals with stuff like this.. how C3P0 is fine, but the droids in "I, Robot" were kind of freaky, because they looked more human, close enough to set off our wiggins about the bits that weren't.

Whatever does the job. Even Aunt Beru is dropping vegetables into some kind of food processor as opposed to replicating everything. But that could be because the Lars family was poor.
(By Star Wars standards anyway, I'd love to have a place like that!! )

unbeataBULL wrote:domestic devices do seem to haver a longer technological life-span than military devices. no one is planning onreplacing the oven, a device centuries old, just yet (though we have advanced from wood, to gas to electric).

on the other hand, no one still rides horses to battle either. its all tanks and airplanes, with infantry only to secure cities.

now that i think about it, star wars isn't necessarily just using primitive tech. a stardestroyer is hardly primitive. just some aspects seem out of date with others. why does C3PO move so akwardly when trade federation battle droids are so smooth? why isn't terra-forming a commonly seen process when they can already synthesize water (Bounty Hunter Wars, book II: Slave Ship)?

Actually, infantry are used to take and hold any sort of ground, not just cities, in fact that is the primary purpose of any military ground force, that hasn't changed in at least 6,000 years. Also, horses and mules are still being used today by the U.S. army, because: they can go where trucks can't, are cheap, and you don't have to worry about gas or vehicle maintenance or oil. While on the subject of military advancement your basic grunt 3,000 years ago and the grunt of today still carry pretty much the same weight of gear, though not neccessarily the same gear.

anakin made 3p0 out of what he scrounged from the blue guy, im surprised he can move

avoidingthepo wrote:anakin made 3p0 out of what he scrounged from the blue guy, im surprised he can move

And yet nobody ever comments he moves awkwardly. It seems his mode of locomotion is par for the course for protocol droids. Darwin has a point.

avoidingthepo wrote:anakin made 3p0 out of what he scrounged from the blue guy, im surprised he can move

Threepio also had sand in his joints, then was ripped apart and put back together again on the fly...

all true, but not to mention the stick up his ass all the time probly doesnt help

Actually, infantry are used to take and hold any sort of ground, not just cities, in fact that is the primary purpose of any military ground force, that hasn't changed in at least 6,000 years. Also, horses and mules are still being used today by the U.S. army, because: they can go where trucks can't, are cheap, and you don't have to worry about gas or vehicle maintenance or oil. While on the subject of military advancement your basic grunt 3,000 years ago and the grunt of today still carry pretty much the same weight of gear, though not neccessarily the same gear.

um, don't they use tanks to take and hold ground? infantry can be bombed from the air and from the ground with out effective retaliation. infantry always needs the support of some kind of anti-aircraft mechanism, i.e. laser targetting, sonar, etc.
a rocket launcher alone won't have that kind of equipment.

tanks have the advantage of greater mobility, greater protection, and greater firepower. aircraft have extreme speed and great fire power.

IMHO, WWII was the end of the infantry era. once bombing and tanks became common, infantry were just needed to secure the area.

of course the whole war of 'Nam was about securing areas, so that didn't help much

and you have to admit that they don't commonly use pack animals in the military (which was my point). how often do you see a guy on horse-back in the battle field?

And 3P0 has to interact with humans on a regular basis. The smooth movement of battledroids could be considered 'creepy'. People who deal with droids a lot want droids to look and act like droids. There's a whole branch of psychology that deals with stuff like this.. how C3P0 is fine, but the droids in "I, Robot" were kind of freaky, because they looked more human, close enough to set off our wiggins about the bits that weren't.

that's true, but don't you think the "creepiness" of I Robot droids and Trade Fed ones have to do with their ability to kill you easily (with immense strength/speed) and their other-worldly skeletons, respectively?

it could be a frankenstein-complex though.

Uh...you do understand Infantry is what goes building to building and insure that the people(Y'now the things you want to conquer) are secured.

Tanks, bombings, and other such tactics can be bothered manuvered around and taken below ground. And unless your objective is genocide, you're pretty much shit out of luck if they decide to hunker and wait you out if you have no soldiers.

And bullshit on WW2 being the end of the infantry.

In fact that the problem with most of our bullshit mentality towards the military. Without infantry you don't control the area. Who cares if you've turned it into a pothole...means you failed.

unbeataBULL wrote:
um, don't they use tanks to take and hold ground? infantry can be bombed from the air and from the ground with out effective retaliation. infantry always needs the support of some kind of anti-aircraft mechanism, i.e. laser targetting, sonar, etc.
a rocket launcher alone won't have that kind of equipment.

Infantry's whole purpose is to take and hold ground. They can dig in which makes them hard to root out. Tanks can be identified and engaged at long ranges and because of their size are hard to hide. Ifantry are small targets and are very numerous.

tanks have the advantage of greater mobility, greater protection, and greater firepower. aircraft have extreme speed and great fire power.

See above for my response to tanks. Airpower is great for bombing things. But infantry are still required to root out the enemy. Remember Gulf War I, the Iraqi Army endured weeks of bombardment and still had to be engaged by infantry to get rid of them. Kosovo showed us that airpower can be remarably ineffective against a competant foe (Serbia).

IMHO, WWII was the end of the infantry era. once bombing and tanks became common, infantry were just needed to secure the area.

If you believe that you are either horribly informed or a moron. Either way it's obvious that you have never served in the military, as I have I will correct you.

Despite years of heavy bombing, Nazi Germany still had to be invaded and the enemy rooted out of every house and hamlet. That takes infantry.

of course the whole war of 'Nam was about securing areas, so that didn't help much

Actually the US won every battle of the Vietnam War. After Tet in '68 the VC were decimated as a fighting force. The politicians lost that war.

and you have to admit that they don't commonly use pack animals in the military (which was my point). how often do you see a guy on horse-back in the battle field?

Afghanistan, horses were used extensively by US special forces in the country.