>>64280528
>What Gundam space combat concepts are actually plausible?
Most if you're not too strict. I wouldn't be too strict either, because people trying to predict the future by just extending the current trends are always wrong.

Minovsky particles are the only real "magic" in the gundam franchise, but even that is just an extension of 20th century science trends. They're even used tactically the way we use equivalent but more primitive tech.

Self-contained suits being used to fight in radioactive or hazardous environments is plausible, maybe not the scale of a mobile suit. Also standardizes larger caliber weapons since humans are a bottleneck. It also makes something like energy weapons more feasible since you don't have to miniaturize the power requirements as much.

Mecha memes aside, if you could get a mech to move like a bipedal animal, it would be OP. We're nowhere near that, but it's not implausible.

Contrary to popular fiction, space colonies are 100x more plausible than terraforming planets on a cost ratio. The ones in gundam are based on a theorized plausible layout.

I'm ambivalent about the mechs in space part. The power and design requirements to get what we see mechs do in space seem out of scale with the rest of the series. The beam saber also seems implausible in the same time scale, and also pointless since they can scatter and disperse beams over a wide area. The mechs that hover and move quickly and be very agile also seem out of step with the other tech on the ground.