Why hasn't an "Iron Man"-like suit been made yet?

>they're working on it
Doesn't make it any more real right now. They cant even manufacture a single plate for full scale testing and have to make do with miniature scale experiments.
also
>Layers of carbon one-atom thick can absorb blows that would punch through steel.
Is the dumbest possible way to say X has greater tensile strength than Y.

There have been news reports of people trying to make iron man suits. Haven't heard much aside from people trying though.

it's literally been made. not mass produced, but it has been made.

labnews.co.uk/news/scientists-achieve-breakthrough-graphene-production-19-09-2016/

except it's not. there's no space for motors or any other shit in the iron man suit, so it'll have to be some other structure that is capable of movement. and that will then need to be powered, which, if you want to fly around the world in this shit like iron man does, can only be achieved via tiny nuclear reactor.

>cant even manufacture
>10 to 100 sheets of graphene
retard detected
>>Layers of carbon one-atom thick can absorb blows that would punch through steel.
Is the dumbest possible way to say X has greater tensile strength than Y.
what is proportional tensile strength

>"there's no space for motors or any other shit in the iron man suit"
>implying it would be exactly like the iron man suit
>tiny nuclear reactor
if you want to strap a bomb to your chest and fly around go join ISIS you brainlet

Graphene is 1 atom thicc, bullet will go through each layer easily. Nanotubes are fibers, sharp bullet will just spread them out and slide between them, like with kevlar.

>10 to 100 sheets of graphene
>literally 10s to 100s of layers of atoms thick
>being this retarded

next time you get shot with a micrometer sized glass bullet let me know

>can't come up with a counter argument
>"hurr durr you'll never get shot by a micro bullet"

they dont form crystal lattice

also the fact that you would die without an extremely efficient impact-absorbing system.

>Overkill
Underkill more like. A full sized reactor couldn't power an Iron Man suit

so? you don't need a crystal lattice to stack sheets of paper

eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=104&t=3
>The amount of electricity that a power plant generates depends on the amount of time it operates at a specific capacity. For example, if the R. E. Ginna reactor operates at 508 MW capacity for 24 hours, it will generate 12,192 megawatthours (MWh). Most power plants do not operate a full capacity every hour of every day of the year.
>508 MW per hour is not enough

>extremely efficient impact-absorbing system
>what is graphene

Unless 100 sheets of graphene can stop a pistol round I already proved my point. It isn't ready for full scale meaning it can't be used in the manufacture of armor meaning there is no point bringing it up when asking about the current ability to manufacture an iron man suit.

We also can't make miniature arc reactors or motors capable of propelling and controlling a suit, that doesn't mean reactors motors and algorithms aren't real.

he means G forces dumbass

that doesn't stop your brain from dropping its spaghetti inside your skull

and what would genius?

in the comic books, iron man lifted an entire nuclear reactor and threw it at something.

its definitely an under kill. even in the movie he flies at like mach 2

impractical, technically-unfeasible, expensive, useless.
I think that's about it.

First off, nobody in their mind wants a iron man suit. I ask one question, why would you want to fly? It's a giant waste of energy, time, fuel, and weight. Now next question, why add "super strength"? What practical battlefield advantage will that offer? When will the ability to manhandle a car come into play when the targets are 20-30 meters away? So then the only thing that's practical is a bullet proof suit, perhaps throw in some basic exosuit functions so you can increase the soldiers effective load, but even then why is it practical to wear those suits? You'd have solders walking around with just invicable armor, losing many of the other important tools that are needed outside of the fight.

So what you want is actually something that only has 1/3 of the functionality of a iron man suit, that you would need to optimise the hell out of in order just to keep people from passing out due to overexertion and even if it works, why not just get behind a solid surface and take cover?

Not your original commentor but you do know that's why football players still get concussions? No matter how well you build a helmet, the skull still acts as it's own helmet to the brain, and with extreme force bruising and bleeding can occur. It's also the reason some of the best Kevlar vests still break your ribs when you get shot with higher caliber weapons, it can dissipate the energy over a greater area but you managed to take a mach marble and turn it into a gorilla punch, survivable but the energy still must go somewhere.

>He thinks all Nuke reactors are bombs.

XD

>Why would you want to fly?
Because it's exhilarating and awesome.
You should try it some time.

Lack of sufficient power systems. A battery powered suit would only last like 15 minutes. In the iron Man series the suits are powered by handwavy "arc reactors" that create infinite free energy. All the servos and subsystems for that suit would suck down a battery quick.

Because if you put them all together you have to lift a massive bullet proof stronk-exoskeleton with a power source. The method of flight used by ironman is made to be cool, not to be practical.

They already exist. Problem is they necessarily require a lot of power, so you either have to be constantly tethered to a power socket (impractical) or only use it for as long as a battery can last (not long).

>powerpack
>internal combustion engine powering hydraulics and a dynamo
Explain why this won't work, /x/. Even the source of fuel is readily available.
>inb4 cooling
Fission and meme fusions need that too.

Not why someone would want a jetpack, or the ability to fly, but rather why waste all of that space, weight, and time to create a weakspot that doesn't even offer a real battlefield advantage?

Once again, the issue isn't "is a flying solder suited for the battlefield" because drones have already answered yes, but rather why put a person inside it?

We made an exoskeleton, its's called a tank.

Most autistic post ITT

It does work, it's just fuckhuge, expensive and hard to control.

The only techonology we need is the capacity to store high quantities of energy in a small place. That would solve Ironman suit and many other scifi stuff( like laser guns)

Flying is fun and strength is very useful in combat to carry equipment and wounded mates

A bullet or a tomahawk is cheapier.

I actually do a lot of research into personal VTOL in my spare time but I stopped posting about it here because everyone is such a negative nancy. You have 4 realistic options for powering your jetpack: rocket, jet, electric or gas.

Rocket jetpacks work perfectly fine, they have existed since the 1960s, problem is your fuel lasts about 30 seconds. This is an inherent limitation caused by the fundamental laws of rocketry; they're a technological dead end.

Jet jetpacks have also been built with micro turbines that are now available on the hobby market but there is also an inherent limitation that not many people think about. You see small jets have small compressors, which have low compression ratios which means you will burn through all your fuel in maybe 2-5 minutes. Unlike with rockets you can fight this limitation by increasing the RPM of the compressor and CC temp but that pushes materials science to the limits.

Gas jetpacks, are also feasible but the power to weight ratio of gas engines are generally poor compared to jets/rockets. Hence why attempts such as the Martin jetpack are so large.

Electric jetpacks, well currently batteries are not up to the job, this may change in the future however. If it does then electric would beat all the other methods because brushless motors are lightweight, cheap and easy to control.

Control, that is another major issue that no-one considers. Jet/gas engines are hard to control because of their slow/inaccurate throttle response. Some guys like Franky Zapata has forced it with fancy electronics for his flyboard air but the whole system is expensive and probably still not accurate enough to satisfy the FAA.

I have been working on some ways to improve electric thrust but I will not post it here. Firstly for patent reasons and secondly because as I said everyone has always been so negative and dismissive of my ideas here.

Flight conflicts with the other requirements. It's like asking for a flying tank. Nothing that flies will take a hit like a tank.

Strength enhancement and heavy armor go together hand-in-glove, so you can have bulletproof infantry with shitloads of ammunition and heavy weapons running around as easily as if they're naked, but people have been struggling with strength enhancing exoskeletons since the 60s. Shit's hard, yo. Basically you're building a robot --and current best practice is to lock robots in cages that can only open when their power's off to prevent people being mangled by their rapid, unyielding motions-- to work in constant intimate contact with a human being and be instantly responsive to that human's wishes. And on top of that you've got to miniaturize the power supply and have it be quiet. We barely pull off bipedal locomotion in androids. Exoskeleton combat armor will probably come some time after androids that can pass for human while walking in heavy clothing.

As for a flying suit, it's damned hard to make it simultaneously small and useful. "Suit" implies a very high payload fraction, while at the same time making little compromise with aerodynamic reality. Without radical advances over what we have now, we're stuck in the range from jetpacks to hang gliders.

You have to realize that this stuff was as easy to envisage in the 1950s as it is now. Because breakthrough improvements are still needed, it's very difficult to predict when practical results will be achievable.

...and this is all, of course, assuming that you mean a reasonably realistic suit concept, not something as fully cartoonish and physics-ignoring as the Iron Man suit.

Because we stil aren't very good at making exoskeletons that enhance strength. Exoskeletons still aren't very good at reducing the metabolic cost to the user. The sarcos exoskeleton shown requires a tether to some hydraulics.

What exactly would an electric jetpack use as propellant?

Electric turbine.
Electricity -> Heat.
>Become the Rocketeer.

what about fusion power?

aside from the fact that we can not do it realistically with surplus energy

Iron Man suit is ridiculously impractical. All those functions it performs are better handed off to individual pieces of tech optimised for that specific task. Now, an armoured exoskeleton that will enable a man to walk into a room full of angry people with automatic weapons and shotguns and manually disarm them (or just shoot them) while their bullets plink harmlessly off? That would be uniquely useful, cost a hell of a lot less, and be in more than one place at any given time. All you'd need is a few millimeters of steel all-round and you'd essentially have a bipedal tankette that can walk around inside buildings.

do you realize how heavy that would be?

I think using the example of the Crysis suit would be better. Implementing flying would be difficult and most likely not all that useful.

If you were to make a suit that helped the user move without expending as much energy it would be more worth the investment. That and of course being bulletproof.

About 200kg for a suit made of 12.7mm steel that fits the average human

because G-forces render an Iron Man suit a flying coffin if you ever hit anything or stop from a high velocity

any fusion design would be a bomb, youre retarded

Air obviously, it's a fan.
This is why I don't post here anymore.

That infographic is sure missing a fair amount of information.
A huge amount happened in terms of arms and armour between the 17th and 21st centuries.

Then at this point we are building a flying APC built for one. Size would quickly become a problem and at that point why isn't it just a vehicle.

Modern warfare just isn't suited for Iron man. Especially when his primary tools are nearly science fiction and their real world equivalents are huge expensive and weak. Take for example, the ion blasters/thrusters, we struggle to even achieve any thrust at all with a massive one, and now we have to shrink that down to the palm of a hand? While dramatically increasing thrust? His core also is similar edge science, we have nuclear reactors, but none that small, safe, and that outputs more then a normal reactor.

So already we have compromised several critical aspects of "Iron man"

Weapon systems must be external, probably ballistic, potentially lasers if you fixed the energy problem

Thrust must be provided by either a jet, requiring fuel, or several high power fans, which are weaknesses and make it's use much more niche.

It's energy core is basically impossible for a modern equivalent with that much energy stored.

Once again, what role does this thing have?

Energy storage is still killing us. Between the weight of all that shit and the power it takes to operate, you could Iron Man for all of 5 seconds before you have to get out of your suit and refill the batteries.

Not to mention it's going to be difficult to make armor capable of withstanding hits from 50 caliber or other big rounds. Or you know a grenade.

The rocketeer jet-pack used fuel just like every other jet engine.
The energy requirements are the same regardless of the method of propulsion but jet fuel has a better energy density than batteries.

lol you need a bloody nuclear reactor at the heart of the suit to run it.

we cant make small ones like that. they would also be highly radioactive so good luck with liuekimia

Not to mention, even if we could make a compact fusion reactor that didn't throw out neutrons it would still throw out a fair amount of X-rays.

I'd argue that energy storage isn't that much of an issue so long as you aren't flying. Hydrocarbon fuels have a pretty good energy density, but the issue is that converting them to useful work requires that we have an engine that runs more or less constantly. The power demands for our exoskeleton will not be constant and it is somewhat wasteful to have our engine idling while the user isn't doing much.

Efficiency is another issue. Sure efficiency of energy conversion and actuators are still pretty big issues, but the bigger issue is that we don't understand the dynamics of walking all that well. Big dog and asimo are less efficient than their natural counterparts simply because of the way they're designed. They don't exploit passive dynamics. Moving a brick at the end of a rod back and forth is energetically expensive, but if you add some restoring force all you need to do is add enough energy to overcome losses due to friction.

Now energy conversion efficiency is an issue too. Hydrocarbon fuels have a large energy density, but we can only use 25-30% of this energy as useful work because we have to go through a heat engine. Now what would be ideally is if we could go from chemical to mechanical energy controllably without going to heat. Biological systems do this

>Why hasn't an "Iron Man"-like suit been made yet?
square cube law

Why put a person in it?

Why arbitrarily conform yourself to the dimensions and mechanics of a human body?

Also, this is assuming you're correct about having the requisite parts and it only being an issue of putting them together, which you aren't.

see you in 30 years

How does anyone suppose lifting about 450 pounds of human and suit with only, maybe 10 2" thrusters in the first place?

Because artillery exist that would render it useless since it will turn you into jelly if it impacts your armor without actually breaking through it.

Maybe in the medieval era such technology would be useful for warfare but its nothing more than a giant load on a soldier who could use the lack of weight to move faster in enemy surroundings.

Maybe they could use them when the war is over to make the occupying troops invincible but for actual warfare are useless.

Also a suit is all you can make, those energy blasters would make the suit so hot it would cook you alive just trying to store that energy to release afterwards.

Did you not watch the movie? The arc reactor is the power supply. To fly for any length of time, you need a shit ton of fuel/power. You could build one, but it'd have a tether for power like in your anime. Otherwise, you are left with short hops like this, where you run out of fuel really quickly.

Even if it didn't hit you, just the concussion from AA fire near you would be enough to knock you out or kill you. Cooling of the fuel tanks for thrusters that would also be a big problem.