StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Spanky The Dolphin,
what lifts them up then? I assume that if a vehicle is repulsorlift, it is also lifted up by a part of the repulsor mechanism. Like the snowspeeders, for ex. - gravity is repelled by repulsors, the vehicle is lifted up by repulsors and repulsor-driven as well. The repulsor has more than one function then. Or me wrong again?

Don't always use a name to define how something fuctions or what it does. That doesn't always work. The repulsion of gravity lifts the vehicle because it's attached to the repulsorlift engine.

I don't know why you have to keep asking this kind of shit to death like you always do. Is it honestly that hard for you to actually understand or get something without other people having to tell you why as you ask 50000 questions that are 50% the same?

Spanky The Dolphin,

I don't know why you have to keep asking this kind of shit to death like you always do

Sorry. One of my negative feats.

Is it honestly that hard for you to actually understand or get something

Okay. Instead of 50000 questions, I'll ask three:
1) why everyone (Reps, Seps, Imperials) switched to walking machines.
2) why MTTs and AATs did not fly over Naboo forest to Theed, instead the MTTs had to break way through it.
3) why AATs did not fly higher during battle of Naboo, that would have saved some tanks from gungan bombs.

That is all, short and easy to grasp, I think.

We did see the destroyer droids utilising a wheeled form, and they were superior to the standard battle droid, faster, seemingly more manueverable, and then able to stabilise and reform on arrival, we also saw one of the seperatists use that wheeled missile artillery, the seperatists werent exclusively using walking battle droids.

According to the original Incredible Cross sections the AT-AT is armour mass is such that the vehicle is too heavy for effective repulsorlifts.

Darth PhysBod wrote:According to the original Incredible Cross sections the AT-AT is armour mass is such that the vehicle is too heavy for effective repulsorlifts.

I find that questionable. These are people who produce thin repulsorlift platforms that really aren't that much bigger in cross-section than an AT-AT on which a giant starship can land with out so much of a dip or bobble, miles above the surface of a planet. From all evidence in the movies, even small repulsorlifts are incredibly powerful, let alone ones that would fit under the belly of an AT-AT (If I would bother with an AT-AT... the are lumbering monsters).

Gil Hamilton
From all evidence in the movies, even small repulsorlifts are incredibly powerful

I believe you have evidence to prove that repulsors small enough to fit into an AT-AT can lift up a bulk same or bigger than the AT-AT. The altitude required is something about 20 meters.

Stas Bush wrote:Gil Hamilton
From all evidence in the movies, even small repulsorlifts are incredibly powerful

I believe you have evidence to prove that repulsors small enough to fit into an AT-AT can lift up a bulk same or bigger than the AT-AT. The altitude required is something about 20 meters.

Given the Trade Federation AAT tanks, it's an easy manner.

They more then likely use AT-AT's because of intimidation more then pure pratical usage.

Stas Bush wrote:Gil Hamilton
From all evidence in the movies, even small repulsorlifts are incredibly powerful

I believe you have evidence to prove that repulsors small enough to fit into an AT-AT can lift up a bulk same or bigger than the AT-AT. The altitude required is something about 20 meters.

Well, Ghost Rider beat me to the punch, but in The Phantom Menace, such a repulsorlift was landed on by Amidala's yacht several kilometers up.

And here you go with that only quoting a fraction of the post thing again. Do you understand that there is a reason why you should quote the entire paragraph? English Comp 101, mate. A paragraph is an idea. Quote just a fraction of something takes it out of context very easily. If you want to emphasize something within a paragraph, quote the entire thing and bold what you want to point out.

Gil Hamilton, sorry for ripping paragraphs apart, but I'd rather adress one small idea in a paragraph then do overquoting.

Well, Ghost Rider beat me to the punch, but in The Phantom Menace, such a repulsorlift was landed on by Amidala's yacht several kilometers up

What does that mean? Dont' quite get it. Would you be so kind to explain If this thing was on the yacht - it's bigger than the AT-AT, isn't it? If that thing is on the ground - again, power systems may be so big that impossible to carry within an AT-AT.
Ghost Rider

Given the Trade Federation AAT tanks, it's an easy manner

AATs are not AT-AT-big bulk. They're smaller.
More than that, once again, the MTTs and AATs were not able to fly as high as 20 meters up. Because they did not do this when they had to.
[edit: they actually never did that at all, nor in canon neither in EU]

Stas Bush wrote:What does that mean? Dont' quite get it. Would you be so kind to explain If this thing was on the yacht - it's bigger than the AT-AT, isn't it? If that thing is on the ground - again, power systems may be so big that impossible to carry within an AT-AT.

Well, it was an incredibly thin free floating platform. It's power source couldn't possibly be that huge, in order to fit inside. I wish I could get a screenshot of this thing, because it's quite amazing.

Stas Bush wrote:

Ghost Rider wrote:Given the Trade Federation AAT tanks, it's an easy manner

AATs are not AT-AT-big bulk. They're smaller.
More than that, once again, the MTTs and AATs were not able to fly as high as 20 meters up. Because they did not do this when they had to.
[edit: they actually never did that at all, nor in canon neither in EU]

Okay...then Jabba Barge.

The repulsorlift has been shown throughout canon to have sizes as small as Swoop bikes all the way up to the Coruscant platform...watch TPM again, when her yacht lands it's on one of those things.

Also, I seem to remember gigantic Trade Federation vehicles crashing though the Gungan forest that were quite large. Fuck, for that matter, the giant Trade Federation landing barges.

Plus, I'm pretty sure the Millenium Falcon lifts itself on repulsorlifts before using it's engines, though it's questionable as to how big the Falcon is. Besides, I'm sure that Han Solo probably tricked out the repulsors like everything else in his ship.

Ghost Rider wrote:Okay...then Jabba Barge.

The repulsorlift has been shown throughout canon to have sizes as small as Swoop bikes all the way up to the Coruscant platform...watch TPM again, when her yacht lands it's on one of those things.

Not only that, but remember the assassin droid in AotC? That thing not only supported it's own weight, but the weight of Obi-Wan, who rode the damn thing back to Zam Wessel while it was moving rapidly and trying to shake him off. The tiny repulsor in the droid was not only sufficient to lift it, it was rediculously overpowered.

Gil Hamilton,
the MTTs are large, but they are incapable of high-altitude flight. The Falcon is a pretty big thing. Can have more space for the repulsors.

EDIT: Gil, you wished you had, now you have:

It's bigger than the AT-AT. A lot bigger. And the bottom surface.

Ghost Rider,
Jabba's Barge is a good example, but it is not heavily armored like the AT-AT, and it has a really big bottom (excuse me ). Such big&flat surface is more effective - the AT-AT has smaller surface under it's belly. Same stays true for the Coruscant landing platform. And not only the problem of bigger repulsor surface, but the problem of power systems. The platform and the barge could incorporate huge power systems which would be impossible to fit into an AT-AT.
That is the only reasonable explanation why repulsorlifts are not used on heavy AFVs like AT-ATs & Juggernauts.

Provide evidence that surface area has anything to do with repulsors.

Howedar
Is it me who should be providing that evidence? I am trying to rationalise what was pointed out: the AT-AT is too heavy for efficient repulsorlifts.

That means: repulsors which can fit in an At-AT cannot lift the vehicle (I am even speculating on the "efficient" word and say that they cannot give it necessary height). Bigger repulsorlifts can lift heavier mass, but they cannot be used on the AT-AT.
So it's just a size/mass problem.

The solution is up to you, however you would solve that. I provided the most rational way.

Howedar wrote:Provide evidence that surface area has anything to do with repulsors.

The more surface area you have, the more repulsors you can put in. Lots of little ones tends to be more stable than a few big ones.

Assuming that repulsorlifts must be installed along the bottom of a vehicle.
For all we know you can put them all inside a box and they'll work fine.

YT300000 wrote:

Howedar wrote:Provide evidence that surface area has anything to do with repulsors.

The more surface area you have, the more repulsors you can put in. Lots of little ones tends to be more stable than a few big ones.

Noooooo, the more volume you have the more repulsors you can put in. Whatever repulsors look like, we know they can be hidden completely within craft (the Naboo vessels probably being the best example of this).

Howedar wrote:

YT300000 wrote:

Howedar wrote:Provide evidence that surface area has anything to do with repulsors.

The more surface area you have, the more repulsors you can put in. Lots of little ones tends to be more stable than a few big ones.

Noooooo, the more volume you have the more repulsors you can put in. Whatever repulsors look like, we know they can be hidden completely within craft (the Naboo vessels probably being the best example of this).

Source? Did we ever see the bottom of a repulsorcraft of some sort, or does it say that in the ICS, or what?

Speeder bikes have no visible "repulsor" parts. And Luke's landspeeder is flat on the bottom. Also most spaceships (like X-Wings) don't have any visible repulsor "parts" on the bottom. Repulsorlifts don't have to be on the bottom of a ship, they're not thrusters, they're some weird gravity-negating thing.

Stas Bush wrote: 1) why everyone (Reps, Seps, Imperials) switched to walking machines.
2) why MTTs and AATs did not fly over Naboo forest to Theed, instead the MTTs had to break way through it.
3) why AATs did not fly higher during battle of Naboo, that would have saved some tanks from gungan bombs.

1. I would guess that theatre shields which prevents repulsorlift vehicles became increasingly common.

2. Cover. Actually, I think you are right. The AAT and MTT were designed to be "low-flying", which is also backed by EU quotes of low ceiling for numerous vehicles. It's clear that repulsorlifts aren't always meant for high altitudes (Luke's landspeeder, anyone?).

Why this distinction? We know some repulsorlifts are meant for stability at a fixed altitude (landing platform). Probably Cloud City as well. I would suggest that this type of repulsorlift can't easily change altitude as a result of whatever makes them so stable. Apparently, this type of repulsorlift is put into vehicles which needs stability, mainly heavy ones such as the AAT and MTTs, plus landspeeders (for comfort). Add Floating Fortress and such vehicles from the EU, too. I theorize that its the same piece of technology, but some repulsorlifts are set for limited operational change, the more concentrated, the more stable and the less it can change. This is presumably a factory setting, not something that can be altered with the flip of a switch.

3. See above. Also, flying slowly at convenient target altitude is a bad idea.