Guns in Space

Status
Not open for further replies.
Brass casings don't rupture even when fired (think tens of thousands of PSI) in a partially unsupported pistol chamber. Why would 14.7PSI rupture them?
Regarding the worries about junk in orbit-fire them down towards the earth-they'll burn up. Firing them away from the earth's gravity would put them in a higher orbit, but with a lightweight object, the orbit would decay pretty quickly. Shooting towards earth is the best option. I think shooting clays in orbit would be a riot. PULL!
 
Along these lines, would a frag grenade work in space? I know that no atmosphere=no shockwave, but would the explosive charge be able to break the hull of the grenade and launch the shrapnel in a vacuum?
 
A fragmentation grenade would work just fine in space. The bits would just fly farther.

So would the .45 bullets. To keep them from coming undone due to the vacuum, just handload them on earth in a low-pressure area, and keep them vacuum packed. You and I don't have work areas like this, but I'm sure NASA or the Air Force have a few.

The militarization of space? With 1911's? :)

Regards.
 
i recall reading something about .22 ammunition that has no powder, but is fired from the force of the primer alone. how would that work in the vaccum?
 
NASA should have this as a project.
They need some positive assignments right now.

This would also open up a whole new field of threads to discuss:
-What gun would you bring if you were an austronaut.
-Low or high velocity rounds when there is no bullet drop.
:p

attachment.php
 
I doubt that the residual atmospheric pressure in a cartridge would cause any obvious effect on the bullet. Even if the pressure didn't slowly bleed off, it would only be pushing on the bullet with a force of around 2 1/3 lbs (for a .45 cal). As Flying V points out, the case is capable of withstanding a lot more than 1 atmosphere of pressure, even when not enclosed in a chamber.


spacemanspiff - Shouldn't you already know things like this? ;)
The powderless .22's should actually work better in space. You'll get the same amount of internal pressure in the cartridge, but they won't have to push any air out of the way to exit the barrel (same for all bullets in space) so you'll get a slightly higher velocity out of them. With the added benefit of straight line trajectory, it should be a pretty effective long range space rat gun. :)
 
I think that in an effort to deal with the recoil issue and cyclical problems, you could use a recoilless type perforated case with a minimum of 3 gas bleed ports (left right & top) and electrical solenoid operated action.:D

Current bullet design could combine micro wire wiskers on the bullet nose that would extend to in effect create a "larger diameter bullet" as the centrifugal forces inparted upon it by the rifled barrel would cause the whiskers to extend.

Huh-woh mr wabbit.... BLAMO!!!!!!!! HeHeHeHeHe!!!!!
 
Nope, not kidding. Believe it or not, the bullet has a remote chance of hitting you. You and the bullet (and your shuttle) are already orbiting at about 30,000 FPS. The thousand or so FPS you are adding (or subtracting) from the velocity of the bullet is not enough to change its orbit to a substantially different altitude. The new orbit of the bullet will vary depending on the direction you fire it. It will likely be an elliptical orbit varying about your own altitude. Again the chance of hitting yourself is virtually nil, probably about the same as getting hit by any other piece of space junk left by someone else.

Don’t forget that the muzzle velocity part is not the biggest danger, the biggest danger is YOU impacting something when you are going that fast. They have even had to replace windshield panels in the shuttle because of damage from paint chips floating around in space.

Poodleshooter, I just read your response. Even firing straight at the earth is not enough. All orbits decay eventually, but the bullet would orbit in a wobbly ellipse for quite a while.
 
okay, this is way outside my area of expertise, but if one wanted to avoid shooting yourself down (which hasn't happened socially since I got married!:D ) in outer space would than not mean you would have to fire only at targets that were *not* on the same orbital path you are? f'rinstance if I fire at a right angle to my orbital path?
 
griz - For the sake of argument, let's say the orbits of the bullet and you are indeed roughly the same altitude. I believe your time estimate of when the bullet would reach you is off. I think it would be closer to 12 to 13 hours for a high powered rifle firing a 3K fps bullet at an orbit of 150 miles. You separation distance is only 3K fps. Your velocity before firing doesn't enter into the equation so the bullet has to chase you around the globe for roughly 12 orbits before it hits you in the back. I don't believe it will make any difference if you fire ahead or behind, but I'll have to noodle on that a little longer.

Now, in reality, I think the orbit of the bullet will be slightly above or below you (shooting ahead or behind) due to the orbital velocity difference.
 
I was wondering if anyone would bring that up. ;)

It's all relative. The two objects (you and the bullet) are closing on each other at 3,000 fps. I's sort of a matter of semantics, one usually thinks of a bullet hitting a target and not the other way around.
 
FYI, there is a handgun orbiting the earth right now. It's in the survival kit in the Soyuz capsule docked to the International Space Station. Purpose is defense of the capsule from wild animals if they come down off course. (This has happened. One cosmonaut in the '60s spent a night in his capsule because he was surrounded by wolves.)

At least two of the early "Salyut" space stations were actually military installations using the civilian program as cover. Word is that a couple of these were armed with a 20mm recoilless automatic cannon (using some sort of rearward gas venting to negate recoil). I think one was test fired by remote control after the crew left.

The Russian 'Polyus' military space station that was destroyed by a booster malfunction ca. 1990 had lots of wild weaponry on board (it was a test bed for various anti-ICBM technology). Supposedly had an automatic cannon, an experimental particle beam weapon, and prototype interceptor missiles. The guidance platform on the Energia booster upper stage failed and the insertion-to-orbit burn was made in the wrong direction, causing the unmanned station to reenter. Oops.

Mark Wade's Encyclopedia Astronautica has photos and diagrams of some of these.

Regarding shooting yourself down--if I recall correctly, shooting a gun in orbit would put the bullet in an elliptical orbit that would intersect your orbit only at the point at which you fired the weapon, i.e. if you fired upward then the perigee of the bullet's new orbit would intersect yours at that point. To put it in a non-intersecting orbit you would have to accelerate the bullet again some time after it was fired, or just do like the Salyut/Almaz plan was and maneuver your spacecraft immediately after firing your gun so you don't hit the projectiles later.

IIRC, one of Robert Heinlein's early stories involved a gun battle with Nazis on the moon, which brings up an interesting point. IF I remember correctly from Apollo mission writeups, the velocity necessary to orbit the moon is around 2000 mph, which is well within the range of high-velocity centerfire rifles. So theoretically, if you shoot a .223 or .220 Swift on the moon parallel to the surface, the bullet will orbit a few times if you do it right (i.e., if the 'perigee' doesn't intersect the surface first), until the orbit gets perturbed enough to hit a mountain or touch the surface. Alternatively, you could make a higher angle shot and drop a round halfway around the moon.

bE
 
Actually, in the Ender series, Ender commanded his troops to fire as if they were on there backs, with there knees bent and their gun between their legs. Also, the guns had no recoil, they were like laser pistols.
 
One thing's certain... tactical black outfits would get quite warm in sunlight in orbit... mall ninjas beware.
 
okay, this is way outside my area of expertise, but if one wanted to avoid shooting yourself down ... in outer space would than not mean you would have to fire only at targets that were *not* on the same orbital path you are? f'rinstance if I fire at a right angle to my orbital path?
Click to expand...
Actually, that's what you want to do if you want to shoot yourself...

If you shoot at right angles to your orbit, the bullet will be in the same orbit, with a rotated axis. One orbit later, you and the bullet return to exactly the same place, at the same time. Ouch!

If you shoot in the direction that you are moving, that will rise the position of the bullet on the far side of the earth. This will result in a longer orbital period, so the bullet will return to the same place, but later than you do. (Yes, by making it go faster in the direction of the orbit, you actually increase the orbital period.)

Similarly, if you fire back in the direction from whence you came, you will lower the position of the bullet on the far side of the earth, resulting in a shorter orbital period. That is, unless you've lowered the orbit enough that it re-enters the atmoshpere.

I believe the firing straight up or straight down will also just rotate the axis of the orbit.
 
I believe your time estimate of when the bullet would reach you is off.
Click to expand...

You are probably right, I have no idea how many orbits is would take. I had a hard enough time accepting the fact that you could not aim straight at the earth and hit it. A target that is 7000 miles wide and pulls the bullet toward it, and I couldn’t hit it!
:scrutiny:
 
I'm surprised nobody has discussed the danger of cabin depressurization when an ND occurs... Just a LITTLE bit different than here on earth... I wonder if they'd have enough time to utter "Oh Crud!" before they did their personal black hole impression.
 
Just imagine, if you were travelling at 860 FPS, and fired your trusty .45 (handloaded to exactly 860 fps :D ) behind you, you could swoop back in one orbit and pluck that sucker from space... at 860 fps of course.
 
... except you'd have to do a darn good swan dive into the atmosphere since the bullet has long since headed for Earth since it's orbital velocity is ... well, there isn't any orbital velocity. :D

(Ignoring the fact, of course, that you would also be Earth bound long before you even fired the gun since 860 fps is roughly 30 times slower than the velocity that could sustain an orbit.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

WestKentucky
  • Locked
Long term shooting hobbyist safety
Replies
2
Views
540
carpboy
C
Biker
  • Locked
Check *This* Out!
Replies
21
Views
2K
CNYCacher
C
A
  • Locked
AR-15 type shotguns
Replies
15
Views
1K
Wakal
W
I
  • Locked
Center Access Relock Method of Gunfighting
2 3
Replies
65
Views
9K
Jeff White
J
J
  • Locked
"Thrust Vector" and other ideas
2 3 4
Replies
80
Views
3K
niemand
N
Back
Top