.
You grossly underestimate work done against gravity. Just consider how far you can get on a tank of gas in a car rolling along the ground and compare that to how much fuel is burnt getting objects the fairly short distance into space. Or with another analogy, human terminal velocity is about 120 mph which means gravity is the same force to overcome as a 120 mph head wind, on top of which you need the energy to move. Batteries have ~1/20 - 1/50th the energy of chemical energy sources. Batteries will never cut it.
TBH I think a robotic rover, like a donkey (as in functioning like a donkey, not a robotic donkey per se), makes more sense for transporting gear. An exoskeleton makes most sense for the uses in science fiction IMO. There's also the issue already raised of the forces exerted on the 'pilot', but these may be able to be dealt with. A bipedal landing with the exoskeleton absorbing the impact (pilot would need to learn to keep their legs netirely relaxed on landing) and providing a more gradual deceleration seems plausible to me.Still along way off jumping suits.
It launches at 11 degrees, with far reduced impact from gravity and using the plane's own wings for lift.
Sure. I suppose as technology progresses, we'll get closer to a point where there is energy available. However, for the past 100 years, portable energy has been crap and yet no writers have factored that into their universes. They treat it as a solved problem. It'd be nice if whatever tech was used was explained. Theoretical techs like Li-air have a history of taking a long time to materialise and even never actually happening due to real-world issues inhibiting the theoretical performance.
