[edrice]

I don't know why this crossed my mind. Obviously there is no sound in space because there is no atmospheric gas to transmit waves. But say you take a short-barreled .357 or .44 mag into orbit and then get out of your orbiter and fire the thing. Will you feel (hear) some sort of pressure wave or blast?

[middy]

Maybe, if the expanding gases from the explosion of the propellant are dense enough to cause a sensation. You probably wouldn't notice because you'd be busy spinning around from the recoil. :eek:

[edrice]

Maybe, if the expanding gases from the explosion of the propellant are dense enough to cause a sensation. You probably wouldn't notice because you'd be busy spinning around from the recoil. :eek:

I forgot to mention that I was hanging onto the orbiter firing with the other hand. :D I don't know that the weaver stance would be all that useful out there.

Ed

[fourdollarbill]

What ever you do, don't lock your keys in the orbiter when you get out. That would just suck!

[LibShooter]

I think the shooter would hear a blast. The sound would be transmitted from the gun to your spacesuit to your ears. A fellow astronaut floating a few feet away would hear nothing.

Unless they were directly in front of the barrel.:eek:

[LoneCoon]

What ever you do, don't lock your keys in the orbiter when you get out. That would just suck!
"Huston, this is space shuttle Atlantis. Uh... could you send someone up here with a coat hanger?"

[LibShooter]

What ever you do, don't lock your keys in the orbiter when you get out.

I think since the U.S. owns General Motors, all government vehicles now have OnStar. They could pop the locks for you.

[funkychinaman]

The Soviets had a cannon on board Salyut 3, and apparently test fired it a few times. And not some special cannon, just a Nudelman NR-23 or 30, the same cannon you'd find in a MiG-15 (the NR-23) or a MiG-19 (the NR-30.) Maybe you can look up if the cosmonauts said anything about it.

[BCRider]

The pressure wave from the shot would likely be felt/heard by a second astronaut in close proximity. But it would be very muted and dissapate very fast as distance increased because it would have to produce it's own medium for transfer as well as be the shock wave all in one. For that reason by the time you were more than a few feet away it would be all but lost. And I agree that the fellow holding the gun would hear it due to the contact with his own suit and arm.

It would be interesting to be in orbit and shoot it "forward" in the direction of travel. The extra velocity would allow it to spiral outward and potentially travel for many thousands of years. Eventually leaving our solar system and wandering among the stars. Assuming you didn't get greenhorn's luck and take down a spy satellite in a higher orbit.... :D

[10X]

Oh, that is what you meant. I thought you meant the keys to the internal lock on the gun. That would be even worse.

[Cosmoline]

The extra velocity would allow it to spiral outward and potentially travel for many thousands of years. Eventually leaving our solar system and wandering among the stars.

Wouldn't the Sun's gravitational pull keep it around in the debris cloud out beyond Pluto? Assuming none of the other planets grabbed it first that is.

[android]

orbital velocity is a constant for a given altitude. If you go lower, you have to go faster, if you go higher, you have to go slower.

If I remember how it works right, escape velocity is about 1.4* times orbital velocity, so the bullet would most likely go into a higher orbit. It's extra speed would be lost gaining altitude.

*actually sqrt(2)

[unspellable]

Bullet won't have enough extra velocity to escape from a low earth orbit where the current manned space flight stuff operates. If fired directly forward in the line of motion it will travel in an elliptical orbit with the point nearest the Earth being where it was fired from. (Assuming a circular orbit to start with.)

If you want to move a space vehicle from a circular orbit to a higher circular orbit, it requires two burns, one to leave the lower orbit and a second to circularize the orbit when it reaches the high point of the ellipse.

[jimmyraythomason]

Just how much "Firing" would there be with no oxygen for combustion?

[Lou22]

"Just how much "Firing" would there be with no oxygen for combustion?"

Interesting question - does smokeless powder contain oxygen for combustion, or does it need air? If the latter, does that mean ammo is weaker at higher altitudes because of thinner air?

If a case is jammed full of powder, when fired, is there still enough oxygen in-between the powder particles for burning, or does the primer firing push the bullet out of the case so outside air can burn with the powder? Inquiring minds want to know :confused:

Lou

[edrice]

The powder itself contains all the ingredients it needs to combust.
It does not rely on atmospheric oxygen to ignite.

Ed

[Lou22]

"The powder itself contains all the ingredients it needs to combust. "

Now that I think about it, I guess that's why guns can be fired underwater.

Lou

[gunnutery]

http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/spaceguns/

This article doesn't mention the sound of the firing cannon but it's still interesting. Thanks for the prompting Funkychinaman.

[A-Roe]

My first thought was that the gun might not work without oxygen also, but then i find this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOS8lrdeEbY

so i figure the gun probably would work in space.

[jimmyraythomason]

Water is two parts oxygen so a gun's ability to fire under water in no way proves that it will fire in a vacuum. I think the burning rate of powder will be diminished in the absence of oxygen. Just how much can be debated into infinity. Fun to talk about but how many here will ever test your theory?

[unspellable]

You need air to produce the muzzle flash. The powder does not contain enough oxidizer for complete combustion so the propellant gases contain carbon monoxide and and other combustable gases. They leave the muzzle at a high enough temperature to ignite on contact with air, producing the muzzle flash.

Tune into the NASA channel at 8:00 AM EDT on Tuesday for a test of theory. We are planning to launch our latest toy. It has some REALLY BIG powder grains. (They use a 48 wheeler to haul one grain with its casing from the powder works to the railroad station.)

[bigfatdave]

jimmyraythomason, the Oxygen in water is not available for combustion. It is already stable and bonded.
By that logic, hosing down a house fire from the hydrant would make it worse.
At the moment of ignition, a cartridge is effectively a closed system, the primer cup doesn't need to vent in air for it to work (rimfire works just fine), it doesn't need Oxygen in the barrel (sustained firing surely leaves the barrel full of O2 deficient atmosphere, but there is not a degradation in combustion)

Now, the physics/trajectory would depend on; location, kinetic energy, direction, and other factors ... it is too complex to determine orbits without all the data, and I don't even remember the math for that stuff any more. What might be worth considering is that metal components in a hard vacuum do not perform as they would in atmosphere - without special low-temperature lubricants and careful selection of materials, your hypothetical gun might not even function mechanically when exposed to vacuum for a sustained period.

[Fourbits]

Burning is a oxidation process requiring gaseous oxygen. The oxygen in water is not available for burning. That's why we use it to put out fires!

Fourbits

[jimmyraythomason]

The only thing that will prove "a will it or won't it" is to DO it. Until then it is all theory. And when it is all over,proven or disspelled,then what? Again,fun to talk about but what has been accomplished?

[Cosmoline]

Of course you can fire a smokeless round in space! No 02 is needed, nor is a voodoo chant nor an offering to Cthulhu. I'm a little surprised people here do not already know this, since it is VERY BASIC to the principle of modern firearms:

Oxygen from the air is not necessary for the combustion of smokeless powders since they contain sufficient built-in oxygen to burn completely, even in an enclosed space such as the chamber of a firearm.

http://www.alliantpowder.com/getting_started/safety/storage_handling.aspx

I trust you're not poking "air holes" in the brass and chamber so the powder can "breath"

[jimmyraythomason]

Thank you Cosmoline, I'ill take your smartazz comments into consideration.

[edrice]

I trust you're not poking "air holes" in the brass and chamber so the powder can "breath"

Exactly. The burn rate is too quick as compared to, say a campfire, that it could't suck enough oxygen out of the air quick enough to support that amount of ignition in such a short period of time. I could just see a machine gunner going dizzy from oxygen starvation... :D

Look at this on nitrocellulose -

The use of nitrocellulose film for motion pictures led to a widespread requirement for fireproof projection rooms with wall coverings made of asbestos. The US Navy shot a training film for projectionists that included footage of a controlled ignition of a reel of nitrate film, which continued to burn even when fully submerged in water. Unlike many other flammable materials, nitrocellulose does not need the oxygen in the air to keep burning and once it is burning, it is extremely difficult to put out. Immersing burning film in water may not extinguish the fire and it could actually increase the amount of smoke produced.[5] Owing to public safety precautions, the London Underground forbade transport of nitrate films on its system until well past the introduction of safety film.

--from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrocellulose

And regarding flash coming out of the barrel, look at this -

Flashless Powder
Nitrocellulose contains insufficient oxygen to completely oxidize its carbon and hydrogen. The oxygen deficit is increased by addition of graphite and organic stabilizers. Products of combustion within the gun barrel include flammable gasses like hydrogen and carbon monoxide. At high temperature, these flammable gasses will ignite when turbulently mixed with atmospheric oxygen beyond the muzzle of the gun. During night engagements the flash produced by ignition can reveal the location of the gun to enemy forces and cause temporary night-blindness among the gun crew by photo-bleaching visual purple. Flash suppression was attempted by structural modification of the muzzle of small arms. This approach was less successful for artillery, where a flame extending 150 feet (50 meters) from the muzzle might be reflected off clouds and be visible for distances up to 30 miles (50 kilometers).

Flash suppression was achieved by smokeless powder additives. Cooler burning explosives like nitroguanidine or ammonium nitrate were added to reduce the temperature of combustion gasses. Inorganic salts like potassium chloride were added so their specific heat capacity might reduce the temperature of combustion gasses and their finely divided particulate smoke might block visible wavelengths of radiant energy of combustion.

--from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smokeless_powder

Ed

[edrice]

I should think it would be comforting to know that you can placidly leave the confines of earth and still eradicate BGs as equipped and you don't even need a ray gun, much less a light saber.

Ed

[Colt Smith]

"I should think it would be comforting to know that you can placidly leave the confines of earth and still eradicate BGs as equipped and you don't even need a ray gun, much less a light saber."


No but you will probably need a permit. Good luck with that.

[smoketheresfire]

This has got to be the weirdest thread I've seen in a while. Love it.:)

[Shadow 7D]

Wow, nobody watches old sci-fi anymore, also didn't james bond shoot his pistol in moon raker?

[stanmo]

Space men carry 20th century guns. Like in "Firefly" and "Battlestar Galactica".

[oldgoat46]

Walking outside in the eye of a hurricane is the closest thing I have ever experienced to being in a vacuum and the sound was amplified ten fold

[dogface]

Water is two parts oxygen so a gun's ability to fire under water in no way proves that it will fire in a vacuum. I think the burning rate of powder will be diminished in the absence of oxygen. Just how much can be debated into infinity. Fun to talk about but how many here will ever test your theory?


whoa, have you ever taken a basic chemistry class??

[jimmyraythomason]

In what way is being under water anything like a vacuum? (BTW, I never intimated that oxygen in water could be utilized in any way,just that it was present). My point is and was ,you cannot prove that anything will perform the same in X environment as in Y environment when x and y are so dissimilar.

[GregGry]

In what way is being under water anything like a vacuum? (BTW, I never intimated that oxygen in water could be utilized in any way,just that it was present). My point is and was ,you cannot prove that anything will perform the same in X environment as in Y environment when x and y are so dissimilar.

Both environments are similar in the fact that neither has available oxygen that could be used in the combustion/expansion process that propels the bullet down the barrel. Unless your suggesting that a pistol which is submerged in water can utilize dissolved oxygen to promote combustion.

[natman]

Water is two parts oxygen so a gun's ability to fire under water in no way proves that it will fire in a vacuum. I think the burning rate of powder will be diminished in the absence of oxygen. Just how much can be debated into infinity. Fun to talk about but how many here will ever test your theory?

Every time the subject of firing a gun in space comes up somebody brings up "will it fire with no oxygen?".

The answer is yes, it will because the gunpowder contains its OWN oxygen.

However, I have to give you extra credit for originality for coming up with the "guns can fire underwater by burning water" theory. :eek:

[jimmyraythomason]

"guns can fire underwater by burning water" I never said that!

[edrice]

Water is two parts oxygen so a gun's ability to fire under water in no way proves that it will fire in a vacuum.

That appears to be a non sequitur. Water's chemical makeup has nothing to do with firing in a vacuum.

I think the burning rate of powder will be diminished in the absence of oxygen.

How do you figure? If smokeless propellant has no need of atmospheric oxygen, why would an absense of atmospheric oxygen have any effect?

It's hard to believe we're back here again. We've come full circle as if none of the previous posts ever happened. Solid fuel rocket propellants also are fully contained with their own oxidizers and have been fired in space.

The departure from the use of gunpowder to more powerful fuels (higher specific impulses) marks the development of modern solid fueled rockets. Once the chemistry behind rocket fuels (fuels provide their own "air" to burn) was discovered, scientists sought the evermore-powerful fuel, constantly approaching new limits. A composite propellant is a mechanically mixed combination of the oxidizer and the fuel. Some common solid oxidizers are: ammonium perchlorate (NH4-ClO4) and ammonium nitrate (NH4-KNO3), chemicals providing far more oxygen than potassium nitrate (KNO3), the oxidizing agent in gunpowder. These oxidizers are often mixed, in making composite propellants, with synthetic rubbers such as: polystyrenes, polysulfides, and polyurethanes. Another type of propellant is homogeneous where the oxidizer and the fuel are combined as one molecule. Propellants of this type often use a double-base (combination of two propellants) of nitrocellulose and nitroglycerin (C3H5(ONO2)3).

--from http://adc.gsfc.nasa.gov/adc/education/space_ex/solid.html

Maybe NASA didn't know they were doing it wrong? I'm not sure why this is being fought so hard. The science is certainly there.

whoa, have you ever taken a basic chemistry class??

Yes, and college chemistry. And the point would be...?

Ed

[GregGry]

"guns can fire underwater by burning water" I never said that!

Well what exactly are you saying then?

A) Gun under water: No useable oxygen to promote combustion

B) Gun in space: No usable oxygen to promote combustion

If a gun will fire under water then it will fire in space. In this case If A) is true then B) is true as well. In space there are less ways that the round could be prevented from being fired. Such in the case of water soaking into the cartridge and disabling the powder/primer, or the gun blowing up due to the increase in pressure.

Many people don't believe a gun will fire in space because of the lack of oxygen. Since the powder has its own oxidizer it would fire in space. Although a vacuum is different from water pressure, for the sake of this test the difference doesn't matter because its a issue of the absence of oxygen that is at the heart of the debate.

[edrice]

In what way is being under water anything like a vacuum?

Neither has available oxygen. Try breathing in either environment.

My point is and was ,you cannot prove that anything will perform the same in X environment as in Y environment when x and y are so dissimilar.

Do you honestly think a solid fuel rocket that will fire in the vacuum of space wouldn't fire underwater?

Ed

[edrice]

If a gun will fire under water then it will fire in space. In this case If A) is true then B) is true as well. In space there are less ways that the round could be prevented from being fired. Such in the case of water soaking into the cartridge and disabling the powder/primer, or the gun blowing up due to the increase in pressure.

And that's another point that hasn't been brought up. Firing a gun underwater would seem rather catastrophic, if not, at least, hard on the gun. I'd much rather fire one in space. Another advantage to space is that, while you'd have sorry ballistic coefficients underwater, you'd have great BC in a vaccum. I guess all bullets would be equal, wouldn't they? A boat tail spitzer being no better than a wadcutter...

Ed

[android]

If a gun will fire under water then it will fire in space. In this case If A) is true then B) is true as well. In space there are less ways that the round could be prevented from being fired. Such in the case of water soaking into the cartridge and disabling the powder/primer, or the gun blowing up due to the increase in pressure.

The increase/decrease in pressure is negligible. Take a 9mm with a max pressure of 34,084 psi. Space is 0 psi, 1 atm = 15 psi and 33 feet of water = 30 psi. so 30 vs 34000 means 34000 will always win. Heck, you could even got to 66 feet.

Absent wet powder, a bullet will make it out of the barrel just fine in all three cases. The drag on the bullet is much higher in water though and it will slow much more quickly.

[bruss01]

The increase/decrease in pressure is negligible. Take a 9mm with a max pressure of 34,084 psi. Space is 0 psi, 1 atm = 15 psi and 33 feet of water = 30 psi. so 30 vs 34000 means 34000 will always win. Heck, you could even got to 66 feet.


Not a valid comparison. You are comparing the ambient pressure of the environment, when what you ought to compare is the pressure of accelerating the additional mass and the friction involved. So however much water is in the barrel, the weight of that water gets added to the bullet weight because the propellant now has to accelerate that additional mass. When actually tested underwater, shotgun barrels get burst and rifle barrels get bulged. Pistols usually survive because the barrel is shorter and less water mass resists the bullet's acceleration.

BTW I too am surprised that we are having the conversation about firing in a vacuum. It is possible to deduce that it will fire by virtue of the oxygen needed for combustion already being contained in the powder in solid form. One question I have not seen addressed is whether any trapped air inside the cartridge would be sufficient to unseat the primer or bullet. It would be possible to test this. I have a vacuum chamber (NO I am not offering to donate it to the cause!) which I use for plastics forming (hobby). get a small gun and put it inside a vacuum chamber (large PVC pipe for instance) with a way to electrically trigger it remotely. Evacuate all the air down to 0 psi. Then remotely fire the gun electrically (solenoid of some sort). This is the kind of thing Mythbusters or box-of-truth should undertake just to put it to rest for good.

I CAN test whether bullets or primers would become unseated by exposure to high vacuum. Hmm, that would make a nifty little experiment.

[edrice]

The increase/decrease in pressure is negligible. Take a 9mm with a max pressure of 34,084 psi. Space is 0 psi, 1 atm = 15 psi and 33 feet of water = 30 psi. so 30 vs 34000 means 34000 will always win. Heck, you could even got to 66 feet.

That's fine as far as it goes. You didn't state bullet weight, but lets take a 124 grain 9mm (about 8 grams) that the propellant has to move out of that barrel. If the barrel is filled with water then how many more grams of water does that propellant have to push out of the barrel to get the bullet out? The longer the barrel the more weight in water that needs to be moved.

Seems this would cause a terrible pressure spike and I wouldn't want to be the one to fire it.

Ed

[edrice]

One question I have not seen addressed is whether any trapped air inside the cartridge would be sufficient to unseat the primer or bullet.

Since it takes way more than 15psi to seat a bullet or primer, I don't see where that would be an issue.

Ed

[edrice]

This guy has come up with an estimation for the force required to seat a bullet -

A bullet that has base surface area of say a typical .308 has an area of Pi x radius squared or .154 X .154 X 3.14159, or 0.07450594844 square inch. If it takes for example 15 lbs. of force to seat a bullet, it would take approximately the same to un seat it. By my calculations, to reach 15 lbs. of force it would take an internal pressure of 201.326 PSI to exert a 15 lb. force on the end of that bullet. (15 divided by the surface area of the bullet, 0.07450594844 = 201.326)

--from http://benchrest.com/articles/articles/12/1/How-Far-Apart/Bullet-Seating.html

A primer probably wouldn't be all that much different. It has a smaller diameter so wouldn't seem as if much force was being exerted.

Ed

[chris in va]

Which begs the question...if you fired a gun toward the earth, would it produce a 'meteor'?:D

[LibShooter]

if you fired a gun toward the earth, would it produce a 'meteor

I think it would produce a pretty good one. The little rocks and dust producing most meteors are a lot smaller than bullets. They're moving a whole lot faster, though. Could some rocket scientists out there do the math?

[Claude Clay]

if you fired a gun toward the earth, would it produce a 'meteor'

begs the answer---
depends on how fast you fire the gun:rolleyes:

seriously, many man made things have fallen out of the sky--skylab 'landed' in Australia. some of it anyways. what metals survived and what burned are on film. details @11:scrutiny:

[Sport45]

This is copied from a Insultingly Stupid Movie Physics (http://www.intuitor.com/moviephysics/) website. Apparently there are folks who are supposed to know about stuff like this actually thinking about it too.

I have no doubt a blackpowder or smokeless cartridge will fire in a vacuum. If they don't the folks who propose storing their "SHTF" ammo in vacuum food sealer bags are making a huge mistake! :)

Outerspace Explosions

Sound is a pressure wave which requires matter of some sort to propagate it. It moves along at a rather sedate velocity of 340 m/s (1120 ft/s) in atmospheric-pressure air. Light, on the other hand, is an electromagnetic wave and needs no matter for transmission. It moves in a vacuum at 300,000,000 m/s (186,000 mi/s).

An explosion would create an expanding cloud of gases that would likely move at supersonic speeds and eventually impact spaceships in its path. If it hit at close range people inside would hear a sound as though their ship had been slammed in the side by a giant hammer. At some distance the sound inside the ship would be like a strong gust of wind blowing against the spacecraft's outer hull.

Observing an exploding spacecraft in outerspace would be quite dangerous compared to observing one on Earth. The shrapnel and debris from exploding spacecraft would attain very high initial velocities just like they do on Earth. However, with no gravity to pull them to the ground and no air drag to slow them down, the debris would travel outward in straight lines virtually forever until they hit something.

Distance from the explosion would reduce the number of projectiles striking a spaceship. However, impacting pieces would have the same kinetic energy they had right next to the blast. A spacecraft would have to use the time afforded by distance from the explosion to raise its shields or risk annihilation. Being in a desperate battle surrounded by exploding ships and having no shields would be certain death.

For more complete details on space battles and how they might unfold see our site's companion book .

[edrice]

That reminds me of this page on cartoon physics -

http://funnies.paco.to/cartoon.html

Ed

[onegun]

there is no pressure because you need atmosphere for pressure waves (sound). The gun would fire as everyone has said because the powder contains its own fuel and oxidizer.

The bullet would continue as fast as it leaves the muzzle until it hit something. The shooter would be spinning in circles and opposite of the direction of the bullet.

[Sport45]

It's not pressure, it's the particles that would be moving through space. If you put say, 20gr of powder in the case you'll make 20gr of rapidly expanding gas. Those gas molecules will also continue on their way until they hit something. When they hit your pressure suit the sound of the impact will travel through the air inside to your ears and you will hear it. That is, of course if your pressure suit was in the path of the ejected gasses which could be described as a hemisphere around the muzzle. A revolver would eject the gasses in a broader area.

Just supposition really, since I'm too old to be accepted into the space program as an astronaut trainee and will never have the chance to try it. I wonder if a turbine shop would let somebody set off a gun in one of their full-speed balance chambers and report if they heard the shot? :)

[kludge]

Even if you didn't hear the expanding gasses hitting your space suit you would hear it because of conduction of the sound through your bones.

[Skillet]

you wouldn't hear it. since there is no air in space, sound waves cannot travel. it would continue on forever unless stopped by a planet or some debris that got in the way. but it would not be affected too much by gravity of another planet, since the force of gravity increases as mass does, something as small as a bullet wouldn't be affected. other than that, the gun would fire normally. we have yet to find anywhere in the universe that has defied scientific laws that have been discovered here on earth, just minus a few things like wind and gravity resistance. you would have no bullet drop, no wind resistance, and very precise accuracy. since friction is not a factor from wind or any other elements that only exist in an atmosphere, i would think that if you could get your target to hold still and not float around too much (like that's possible in space) the ability of repeatable accuracy without much effort on the shooters part would be every accuracy-loving shooter's dream. no certain guns, like gravity fed paintball guns, would not work because your gravity is gone, making the balls not fall into the place needed.
very interesting idea though, maybe when the day comes when the average joe can tote his little .22 pistol or rifle along out into space, it can be tested so that practice can become theory.

as for the shooter spinning in circles after firing the gun, who knows? every action (force) has an equal and opposite reaction (opposite force) so i would wonder if it would make you spin or if what applies on earth would apply up there, if you grabbed ahold of something like one of those handy space station climbing bars you might just do the same you do on earth. which, unless if it's a 50 cal bolt action rifle, would leave me to believe that you would be stable and fine.

now what would happen if you fired one on the moon?

[thorazine]

other than that, the gun would fire normally.

For the most part.

However due to the harsh elements of space -- would you be able to reliably pop off one hundred rounds?

Let alone a single magazine without any failure(s)?






Nineteen elevens excluded of course -- since they aren't reliable to begin with. :neener:

[Jbabbler]

Just to add to the confusion. I found this article to be very interesting.

When the movie Star Wars came out in 1977, remember how many jokes were made about Luke and Han blazing away at Imperial fighters with the ack-ack guns on the Millennium Falcon?

Cover of July 1998 Spaceflight In the July 1998 issue of Spaceflight (the popular publication of the British Interplanetary Society), there's an article1 about the military version of the Soviet Salyut space station, which flew as Salyuts 3 and 5 between 1974 and 1977. (The name “Salyut” was applied to two entirely different space station programs, one military and the other civilian, which used completely different hardware built by different design bureaux.2 The hardware flown in the Salyut 3 and 5 missions was referred to as Almaz (Diamond) within the Soviet space program.)

Virtually no information was available about the military Salyuts until recently, when access was opened up to a full-scale training model at the Moscow Aviation Institute. Well, guess what—Salyut 3 had a machine gun. The station had a 23 mm rapid-fire cannon mounted on the outside, along the long axis of the station “for defence against US space-based inspectors/interceptors”. Combat engagements would have been leisurely by Star Wars or fighter jet standards, since the only way to aim the cannon was to point the entire station at the target, using its attitude gyros. A periscope connected to a visor on the main control panel allowed drawing a bead on the intended target.

As Professor Newton pointed out some years ago, if you fire a cannon in space, you're going to end up going in the opposite direction with some haste. While permitting one to avoid a “fight or flight” decision by simultaneously exercising both options, it would be disconcerting to discover that in the heat of combat you had accidentally deorbited your battle station. So, the station was equipped with orbital maneuvering engines which automatically fired when the cannon was blazing away to cancel its recoil thrust.
Pavel Popovich on board Salyut 3
Pavel Popovich on board Salyut 3 during the Soyuz 14 mission, July 4–19, 1974. Televised images from the military Salyut missions are rare and of uniformly poor quality.

According to a report in a Russian magazine,3 this lash-up was actually tested in space on an unidentified flight, but apparently under ground control at a time when no cosmonauts were on board the station. Pavel Popovich, commander of the July 1974 Soyuz 14 flight to Salyut 3, is said to have indicated that the cannon was installed on Salyut 3 but “fortunately he was not forced to use it”. A Salyut 5 crew member denies the existence of a cannon on that station, so perhaps the wisdom of outfitting a space station with a cannon was rethought, or maybe, the U.S. having had no manned spaceflight capability between 1975 and 1981, low Earth orbit was deemed insufficiently target-rich to justify such weaponry.

The Cold War may be done for, but there are still guns in space, and all of them are Russian. The survival kit in the Soyuz spacecraft which ferries cosmonauts to and from the Mir space station is said to contain, among other things, a pistol and ammunition. This is not so much to put down the occasional space mutiny, but as a precaution in case of an off-course landing in a region with dangerous wildlife. In March 1965, due to failure of the prime retro-rocket system, the crew of Voskhod 2 landed in a remote region in the Ural Mountains and rescue crews could not reach them until the next day.2,4 They were forced to retreat to their re-entry capsule to escape wolves in the forest where they landed.

Now recall that the International Space Station will use docked Soyuz spacecraft as the crew's lifeboat. Imagine trying to persuade folks back in 1986, when Ronald Reagan first proposed “Space Station Freedom”, that when it was finally completed in the next millennium its crew complement would include Russians—with guns.

[anewconvert]

Burning is a oxidation process requiring gaseous oxygen. The oxygen in water is not available for burning. That's why we use it to put out fires!

Fourbits
Unless of course you are dumping water on a magnesium fire. The heat is great enough to break the hydrogen oxygen bond adding both two parts oxygen and one part flammable hydrogen. :)

BC

[Shadow 7D]

Um, why is this even a discussion?

Wow, watch the failure of the American educational system...

[Jbabbler]

Um, why is this even a discussion?

Wow, watch the failure of the American educational system...

Yes, we should all check with you before asking questions. Owr stupitidyy and lak of ejucashun aint werthy of your preasants.

[Dr.Zubrato]

Unless of course you are dumping water on a magnesium fire. The heat is great enough to break the hydrogen oxygen bond adding both two parts oxygen and one part flammable hydrogen. :)

BC

Dihydrogen monoxide, or as you put it Water has a molecular formula H2O.
You are correct though, if sufficient energy is used to break apart a water molecule you would have a flammable mixture. Keep in mind though water is a VERY stable molecule, and it requires a lot of energy to break it down into it's more unstable components. This is one of the reasons water powered cars were never a good idea. (besides the fact freshwater is one of our most precious and dwindling resources..)

Also a small side note: Hydrogen as it exists naturally being the predominant gas in the universe is diatomic, meaning its composition is one hydrogen atom bonded to another. The same applies for the other gas molecule we hold so near and dear to our hearts here on earth, O2.
Practical upshot? One water molecule breaking apart into it's base components yields ONE diatomic hydrogen molecule and the oxygen atom being highly charged with electrons bonds to whatever is closest, usually the chemical that provided the heat for the reaction.

Great thread, lots of fun to read through. Both for concept and hilarity :D

[DAVIDSDIVAD]

Water is two parts oxygen so a gun's ability to fire under water in no way proves that it will fire in a vacuum. I think the burning rate of powder will be diminished in the absence of oxygen. Just how much can be debated into infinity. Fun to talk about but how many here will ever test your theory?


Water is two parts oxygen so a gun's ability to fire under water in no way proves that it will fire in a vacuum.


two parts oxygen s

http://images.thetruthaboutcars.com/2009/01/facepalm.jpg



I cry myself to sleep after reading things like this

[edrice]

Dihydrogen monoxide, or as you put it Water has a molecular formula H2O.

Speaking of dihydrogen monoxide, this may be a little off topic, but be sure to look at the dihydrogen monoxide fact page -

http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html

and be sure and sign this petition -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi3erdgVVTw

Ed

[Shadow 7D]

^^^^^^
Yes, lets get that nasty stuff out of out lives and do away with all the harm it causes, dangerous nasty goo of death if you ask me.

BTW, please pass this petition on to all you gun hating friends so they TOO can help to make the world a much safer place

The UN wants space to be a gun free zone, just thought I throw another bone of contention on the fire, but why should they worry since they still haven't worked out a gun that can work in space...

[onegun]

And if you were at the space station "outside".... If you threw your gun out in front of you it would loop back and hit you in the back....

And that first website is ridiculous...nice use of silly pictures, catch phrases, and facts that sound outrageous...I am familiar with the stuff and agree it's bad, but come on...make the website a little more professional

[Sunray]

"...think the shooter would hear a blast..." Nope. No sound in a vacuum. You will get pressure from the gases created. Just not air pressure.
"...burning rate of powder will be diminished in the absence of oxygen..." Nope. Powder provides its own O2.
"...why is this even a discussion?..." It's fun.
"...since they aren't reliable to begin with..." Never fired one?
"...watch the failure of the American educational system..." It's too late when graduating out of high school can be life's major accomplishment. And they still can't spell or construct a sentence. Mind you, that's not limited to the U.S. Had a Cadet who thought the word 'him' was spelt 'hem'. He graduated from high school too.

[Sport45]

Speaking of dihydrogen monoxide, this may be a little off topic, but be sure to look at the dihydrogen monoxide fact page -


Where does this dihydrogen monoxide business come from. I thought it was properly called hydrogen hydroxide. It's the product of the free H+ ions combining with the free OH- ions when an acid and base are combined to form salt and water.

And besides, hydrogen hydroxide doesn't trip up a spell checker like "dihydrogen monoxide" so it must be right. :)

[DAVIDSDIVAD]

It's a pretty POLAR argument.


HEHEHEHEHEHEHEHE, Chemistry joke.



Anybody?....

anybody?

[Dr.Zubrato]

Where does this dihydrogen monoxide business come from. I thought it was properly called hydrogen hydroxide. It's the product of the free H+ ions combining with the free OH- ions when an acid and base are combined to form salt and water.

And besides, hydrogen hydroxide doesn't trip up a spell checker like "dihydrogen monoxide" so it must be right. :)

There are many correct names for H2O, and yes you are correct an acid and base react to form water and salt. However, keep in mind "free H+ ions" or protons don't exist in solutions, because as ions they are attracted to electrons in chemical bonds and molecules. In water, protons are solvated by water and forms a bond with the electron dense oxygen atom which gives us the hydronium ion H3O+
I'm not sure, but I think i remember hearing one of my high school teachers mention something about bare protons existing only in solar wind, and Fermilab in Batavia, Illinois :D where physicists smash protons/antiprotons and other atoms stripped of their electrons together at 99.99999954% the speed of light. (Best field trip EVER!)

Not really related to firing a weapon in space, but since this is my area of interest i figured I could give my .02 cents

@ David : :D :D ;)

[edrice]

There are many correct names for H2O, and yes you are correct an acid and base react to form water and salt.

Yes, also called "hydroxic acid" and "hydroxylic acid" but they chose "dihydrogen monoxide" for the petition because it's a more menacing sounding threat.

"Dihydrogen monoxide" may sound dangerous to those with a limited knowledge of chemistry or who hold to an ideal of a "chemical-free" life (chemophobia).[4] The only familiar common usage of the term "monoxide" is in the highly poisonous gas "carbon monoxide", and the simplified term "monoxide poisoning" is commonly used to refer to poisoning by this colorless and odorless substance.[5] Health officials frequently advise the purchase of carbon monoxide detectors to protect against this poison, which is sometimes referred to simply as "monoxide".


--from the dihydrogen monoxide hoax page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihydrogen_monoxide_hoax

(whoops had to edit that url. Gave the url for this thread)

Ed