Shooting in Space

[Fly320s]

But then we have to think about the back stop.

Should we aim at the Earth knowing that the bullet will burn-up on reentry or should we aim toward (presumed) empty space?

If we fire off into nothingness there is a possibility that the bullet will return toward us at some future time.

New headline for the NY Post: "Man killed by bullet fired 1 year ago."

 

[bedlamite]

I reread everything, you did mention it once (not several times). You also went overboard in defining the problem, while neglecting to solve it.

Linear motion, even with a defined positive direction, is still a vector.

 

[griz]

The biggest problem is collecting your brass.

 

[Newt]

I'm no rocket surgeon, but I do have a question to clear something up for us here in the office. The ingredients in a powder charge will support any type of discharge from a weapon without supporting O2 in the air because of it's ingredients? I ask because some of the people in the office say that the vacuum of space will either 1) crush the shell or 2) pull all of the supporting O2 out of the shell so that it cannot ignite. From what I'm reading on here 1) it doesn't have to have the supporting O2 in the shell because of the ingredients in the powder and 2) I believe the projectile is sealed inside the casing enough so that the vacuum of space cannot pull the remaining O2 out of it. Input is welcomed.

Newt

 

[ShaiVong]

Could a bullet survive in a DP of ~24psi? PSIg~24PSIa right? Or was that 14? Ugh.

I would imagine that unless the brass is sealed, then the gasses would leach out.

Edited to add:

The DP of a vacuum is less than 25ft of water, right? which is two atm. I'm sure the brass could take the stress NP.

 

[J Miller]

= MIGRAINE HEADACHE + Excedrin = Relief.
Where's that green bottle.............

 

[2nd Amendment]

Supposedly our astronauts played with this very thing on the moon, firing a .45 in a series of experiments. I read an article on it a few years back, but I ALSO read NASA denied it(???). Regardless, the only real questions are the ones regarding gravitational effects, the ammo and firearm will function fine.

 

[FireInTheHole]

What about center of gravity? If you shoot your pistol normally chances are you would be sent into a tumble... whould have to place the gun someplace over your abdomen(or hip?) to prevent it.

Anybody see that movie "MoonTrap"(?) had what's his face from Ghostbusters in it. Ya Dan Achrod (?). They fire off uzis while in orbit for thrust!

Oh... and your gun would likely explode due to the extreme heat/cold of space and the lack of atmospheric pressure playing havoc on chamber pressures... now there's a thought.

 

[Mute]

Mama don't let your children growup to be gun owning physicists!

 

[willyjixx]

pretty irresponsible to be launchin lead into the outer regions. bound to raise the voices of liberal aliens an why they should take over earth because were a danger.

so its a safe assumption that an pump action air-rifle is pretty dang useless in space. but how bout a C02?

 

[DigitalWarrior]

Ultimate Space Weapon

The ultimate space weapon is a 55 gallon drum filled with sand (and a 1/2 pound high explosive) launched into high orbit then detonated.

Ships, sattelites, and spacesuits are vulnerable to micrometeorite puncture. Communications, spy sats, etc would be hosed. As sats get shredded debris increase.

I think about this and terrorists in rocket science majors in universities.

 

[lee n. field]

Just wondering, as oft I do, what would happen if an Astronaut fired a .45 acp pistol in space? Would the bullet go 850fps in one direction and the Astronaut 850fps in the other direction or would a gun even shoot in space?

Proportional to the different masses. 230 grain bullet takes off at 850fps. Astronaut + suit massing maybe 2.8 million grains (guessing 400 pounds for the astronaut plus suit) takes off the opposite direction quite a bit slower.

Since there is no resistance to bullet travel would a gun that shot a bullet 850fps here on Earth shoot the same bullet at a much greater velocity?

Nope. it just wouldn't slow down. It would follow whatever path Newton decrees for it.

 

[atek3]

most cartridges don't use gunpowder these days. 45 ACP generally uses single base propellent which is basically nitrocellulose and binders. Nitrocellulose burns so rapidly because it doesn't need outside oxygen, the Nitro groups (-NO2) within the molecule supply the oxidizing component of the chemical reaction. The net result is that the oxygen in the nitro group forms water and carbon dioxide (with the carbon and hydrogen present in the molecule) and the nitrogen atoms form N2 (nitrogen gas). So basically a 45 ACP will fire in space. However, the gun would be so cold and possibly brittle the chamber pressure might rupture the gun. Also if the sun came out the rounds would likely cook off inside the gun leading to a catastrophic failure sending shrapnel through your suit killing you. Long story short, don't bring your colt into space. A simple but effective design for space based anti personnel weaponry is basically a recoilless rifle firing clusters of flechettes. (A recoilless rifle has holes on both ends, out one end comes the cartridge and out the other comes a blast equal in momentum such that the impulse given to the shooter is minimal)

atek3

 

[ShaiVong]

A simple but effective design for space based anti personnel weaponry is basically a recoilless rifle firing clusters of flechettes. (A recoilless rifle has holes on both ends, out one end comes the cartridge and out the other comes a blast equal in momentum such that the impulse given to the shooter is minimal)

Where can i get me one of those!?

 

[Lord Grey Boots]

Don't forget that most of the reaction momentum will go into cycling the gun and be absorbed by the recoils spring. I suspect that our intrepid space hero may have to stabilize himself to avoid going head over tail very slowly, but he could put repeated rounds on target fairly easily.

 

[Black92LX]

Hmm shooting in space. i wonder if the Government would make us get a special permit to shoot in space, since shooting in space would be completely silent, you wouldn't even hear the bolt action.

 

[Guy L Johnson]

psssniper close but.............

you analisis is correct except that the astronaut has a far grater mass not to be confused with weight as such his oposit velocity would be far less example if the astornught has 1000 times the mass he would move away at 1/1000 th of 850 fps this dose not count for the recoil that is absorbed by the slide spring and yes a gun will fire in space as the propelant contains its on oxidzer a sealed cartrage fires.
Guy L Johnson

The worlds worst typist

 

[atek3]

Where can i get me one of those!?

you can't, all non-shotguns over 0.5" are 'destructive devices'.

atek3

 

[zpo]

How fast was Voyager (I or II?) going when it left the solar system?

 

[Combat-wombat]

Come to think of it, I'll bet that's how the Brady Campaign can say that a .50 BMG rifle has a 4-mile range! In outer space! Just think of it! Do you know how easily a moon terrorist can pick off a satellite? Also, .50 caliber rifles can easily shoot down a galaxy!. Think of the space children! Think of the space children!!!

 

[Orthonym]

Hey, guys, it's already been done! (or at least paranoically prepared for)

I recall reading a book by (James?) Oberg about the recent US-Russian space adventures. No, I didn't read all of it, I did read most of it while standing up in the bookstore. While Mr. Oberg was talking about the corrupt subsidies we've provided to the Russkies to keep them in the space business, he (almost parenthetically) mentioned, and showed a picture of, a Nudelmann 23mm (?) cannon which went up with the Russian space station, just in case we had designs on the thing.

 

[ShaiVong]

you can't, all non-shotguns over 0.5" are 'destructive devices'.

Couldnt I get a 10 or 12ga recoilless rifle then? I hear the term thrown around alot, but ive never seen any exact info about them. Anyone have a good link?

 

[280PLUS]

finally,,,

someone (or two) figures out that unless the astronaut were to hold the gun in precisely the right spot he would begin to tumble slowly off into space where he will then continue on into infinity until some gravitational force like the sun took hold upon him/her and sucked them in

so now, all you brainiacs (dating myself, where does the term "brainiac" come from??)

at what speed would the astronaut tumble and also, given the forces absorbed by creating the tumble, at what speed would he NOW be traveling away from the point at which he discharged the projectile?

and would his direction be exactly the opposite of the direction of the projectile or would he assume another direction due to some of the forces being used to create the tumble?

let's assume he's firing from a weaver stance, that oughta simplify it a little

yes, you may have time to go get your tin foil hats

heck, i'm not even smart enough to word the question correctly...

 

[Mal H]

zpo - I've forgotten exactly, but I think their vel was somewhere in the ballpark of 10 miles per second. However, there was a lot of celestial mechanics involved in achieving that speed. It would have taken a lot more energy if the rocket had been fired directly toward the edge of the Solar System instead of in an orbital configuration and without using the outer planets for a little help.

As rrader correctly pointed out, the escape velocity required depends a whole lot on where you are when you try to escape from a massive something.

280PLUS - Brainiac was one of Berkeley's early monstrosity "computers". "Brain Imitating Automatic Computer".

I'm not even going to make a feeble attempt at your question - too many variables.

 

[280PLUS]

no,,,

the term braniac is earlier than that, they stole it,,,



i'll give you a hint, jerry seinfeld would know...

anyhow, way too many variables,

even if we defined bullet mass and velocity and the astronauts body mass and even eliminated any outside gravitational interference there are still an infinite number of possible points and directions in space to point the muzzle each one necessitating a fresh set of calculations

but what if we defined those terms too??

c'mon, i know somebody out there can do it

oh and don't forget the forces imparted to the gun as the projectile is being spun by the rifling

then my buddy standing here just says,

"what if you put your back against the spaceship?"

ok, whos got that exedrin?? pass it over