The most aswome thing you can not buy!

[Rated EC-10]

Weaponizing the gas given off when one tries to make mustard.

Swing and a miss. But one strike out of the rest aint bad. (Mustard gas isn't named for any relation with the condiment or plant seeds.)


As for other stuff Paper... Balance? I do not see any reason this thing needs to behave like a skateboard, that is a whim of the current design. A miiltary usage one would not be based on a tilting platform for control. It would be based on a more solid footing. If it had a tilting platform at all, it would be one controlled by electronics to make it steadier, more controllable for the rider. The goal wouldn't be for performing stunts or neat tricks so the maneuverability would be less important.

As for controls, I definitely think having a vertical stick in front would solve most any issues, giving an additional point of balance and a way to hang on during acceleration. The wired grip would HAVE to go no matter what, it's completely ill suited for practical uses. The best ergonomics I can think of right now would be a wide-motion thumb hat/stick for throttle and turning, so your fingers could be used only for hanging on.

[Hodgie]

While he may have missed on the true developments of mustard gas, it is a fact that the development of chemo-therapy for cancer is a direct result of mustard gas... Its one of the times that something harmful and negative has resulted in a benefit to society.

[Paper]

The current design seems to be (from the videos) for negotiating terrain, like the military would be using it for. Were it a more solid platform that didn't require as much balancing, I don't think it would be able to get around terrain, at least not without getting much bulkier.

If you put a stick on the front, wouldn't it be just one more thing to break (picture a soldier going down the street, a rifle fires from a window, he dives, the board flips)?

Btw, wasn't the laser project essentially scrapped with the new budget (the 747 mounted laser I mean, I don't know which one you were talking about)?

[ZERO]

Actually if you try to make your own musturd and use a microwave you can produce a toxic musturd gas I was not referring to WWI weapon.

[ZERO]

They have ground based systems, also Obama basically says he is against the defense shield (mainly because Russia does not like it and we best do what they say) but I am sceptical as to if he acutally is chaning anything about it. Obama does not always say and do the same things nor does he think about the consiquences of the things he sometimes does cary out. For example lets shut down Guantamno bay, great but where do we put the people? Our gov over the last 10+years likes to say and do two different things.

As for the controlls I always figured it would be wireless and could be intigrated onto the gun somehow so you can drive from your gun and be able to shoot.

[Rated EC-10]

As for the controlls I always figured it would be wireless and could be intigrated onto the gun somehow so you can drive from your gun and be able to shoot.

OK, speaking as someone with some fair range time under my belt... since I was 8... WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU SMOKING?

You'd either make the gun heavier (without firing benefit), make it less reliable, or make a very awkward system. The orientation of the weapon MUST be independent of the vehicle vector if you are going to use it, and frankly using a weapon from one of these on the move would almost always be a waste of time and ammo. We are not talking about a video game here.

Wireless is bad, because it is jammable. We've seen what happens to player's internet ping when wifi gets interference right? Now imagine that happening to you when you are on a platform moving at 30 MPH. Given any real level of deployment, this tool could NOT be made proof of jamming. You could make it proof of hacking with encryption procedures but you can never make something that small and low power resistant to jamming. And it would suck to have your trooper break a kneecap just cause some old lady was heating soup in a crappy poorly shielded microwave. Plus, you now have the soldiers leaking radio waves which can be detected far beyond the range they are useful at.

It offers infantry mobility. I don't see a use for it beyond moving people and small loads from point A to B and then engaging, but they would really shine at that. If you had to fire on the move at all it would be better to create some mount interface with the vehicle for at least some firing stability. That would require a post standing up, which might as well have controls on it, and now we have a control stick anyway.

Paper, a control stick is absolutely necessary for an average rider to use this if it has speed up to 30 MPH simply to help the driver maintain footing during acceleration. We are talking about acclerating an inherently unbalanced load. The balancing system would be needed to make this simple to use, and it needs to be. As far as terrain goes, if you run into a point too rough (and there would be even with the current design) you just pick the thing up and toss it over then climb over yourself. Simplicity of use trumps other issues, it has to be simple in usage. And ROFL at not wanting to put a STICK on something cause it could get broken, a lot of military gear is made of sticks of one kind or another.

[Paper]

In regards to my comment about the stick breaking, remember how Hodgie said there would be some pretty inventive ways to break this thing? Well that applies to the stick too and I don't think it would be a good idea to equip troops with something that had to be ditched because it's control stick broke.

[ZERO]

It could always be possible to have a cable based system as a backup for wireless failure. But wireless would be needed so that it could double as a remote droid to preform multifunction tasks.

[Rated EC-10]

In regards to my comment about the stick breaking, remember how Hodgie said there would be some pretty inventive ways to break this thing? Well that applies to the stick too and I don't think it would be a good idea to equip troops with something that had to be ditched because it's control stick broke.

Yes but your logic also applies to rifles, relatively complicated sticks soldiers do break and not unusually ditch that generally cost over $1000 apiece for frontline infantry models.

But you don't see any military abandoning issuing them because of that. The same applies to everything from canteens to goggles all the way to humvees and fighter jets. "Someone could break it", when applied to a group of people whose job is breaking things will receive the reply "Of course". Everything can be broken, EVERYTHING. It's not a reason not to use it.

Wireless could be useable for droid purposes, but I definitely think that is a peripheral application. If it dumps a load of ammo at 30 MPH it's no big deal. Human interface leans toward something more solid and balance is something that has to be addressed. (And if this thing uses the balance of its rider, shooting from it would be right out. Try controlling an automatic weapon from a skateboard to hit an also-moving target, now multiply the problems by 3.)

Droid uses could work from something far simpler in practice, 9 times out of 10 it could be based on optical or other method of playing "follow the leader" behind the soldier it's working with. Tight line optical or IR methods are superior for that sort of work in the lower power ranges.

(I would also point out that most off-the-shelf multi antenna wifi devices have all the hardware needed to guide a small rocket to a target close enough to make a small grenade lethal to a wifi user.)

[Paper]

Yes but your logic also applies to rifles, relatively complicated sticks soldiers do break and not unusually ditch that generally cost over $1000 apiece for frontline infantry models.

But you don't see any military abandoning issuing them because of that. The same applies to everything from canteens to goggles all the way to humvees and fighter jets. "Someone could break it", when applied to a group of people whose job is breaking things will receive the reply "Of course". Everything can be broken, EVERYTHING. It's not a reason not to use it.

Yes, but rifles are rather essential to a soldier. This isn't. The easiest comparison I can think of to this (In terms of cost-> effectiveness) is the V-22. The MH-53 could do it's job just fine, but the V-22 could do it a bit faster and at longer ranges. Is that really a good enough reason to spend loads of money developing (modifying in this case) something new to implement?