Will a bullet fire in outer space?

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: Fayd

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: Gibsons

Originally posted by: apac
no oxygen = no kaboom

atmospheric oxygen isn't needed.

So you are saying there is an oxidizer in the gun powder? (and there would also have to be some in the fulminate of mercury, or whatever they are using nowadays as the primer)

even black powder has it's own oxidizer. saltpeter.

i dont know what the oxidizer used in smokeless powder is, though.

typically something with a lot of nitrate groups, like nitrocellulose. lots of NO2 groups.

 

[StageLeft]

Yes. The russians even had a high caliber gun on one of their spy satellites in the 70's (?). It was intended to be used by the guys on it to take out other satellites if the opportunity ever arose. It never did, but I think they may have done a test fire of it.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Yes. The russians even had a high caliber gun on one of their spy satellites in the 70's (?). It was intended to be used by the guys on it to take out other satellites if the opportunity ever arose. It never did, but I think they may have done a test fire of it.

That seems really unlikely, considering that most satellites aren't even remotely close to one another. You'd have to steer over to the other satellite which isn't even possible if they're in different orbits.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Yes. The russians even had a high caliber gun on one of their spy satellites in the 70's (?). It was intended to be used by the guys on it to take out other satellites if the opportunity ever arose. It never did, but I think they may have done a test fire of it.

That seems really unlikely, considering that most satellites aren't even remotely close to one another. You'd have to steer over to the other satellite which isn't even possible if they're in different orbits.

Yeah it would be all but impossible, plus the speed it would be going by you, I don't know why they bothered.

link

In 1974, the Soviet Union launched the Salyut 3 space station, code-named Almaz, which secretly carried a 23-mm Nudelmann aircraft cannon. According to Soviet cosmonauts, tests run on this very first space gun were a success?the cannon even destroyed a target satellite. Although Almaz tracked several American spacecraft, including Skylab, the Soviets never attacked any of them.

And so the question definitively answered.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Yes. The russians even had a high caliber gun on one of their spy satellites in the 70's (?). It was intended to be used by the guys on it to take out other satellites if the opportunity ever arose. It never did, but I think they may have done a test fire of it.

That seems really unlikely, considering that most satellites aren't even remotely close to one another. You'd have to steer over to the other satellite which isn't even possible if they're in different orbits.

With Thrusters they could be moved. The Range of Fire/Accuracy should also be very high, so as long as you knew where the other satellites were and had an unobstructed path, it could possibly be very effective.

I'm guessing.

 

[zerocool84]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Yes. The russians even had a high caliber gun on one of their spy satellites in the 70's (?). It was intended to be used by the guys on it to take out other satellites if the opportunity ever arose. It never did, but I think they may have done a test fire of it.

That seems really unlikely, considering that most satellites aren't even remotely close to one another. You'd have to steer over to the other satellite which isn't even possible if they're in different orbits.

Yeah it would be all but impossible, plus the speed it would be going by you, I don't know why they bothered.

link

In 1974, the Soviet Union launched the Salyut 3 space station, code-named Almaz, which secretly carried a 23-mm Nudelmann aircraft cannon. According to Soviet cosmonauts, tests run on this very first space gun were a success?the cannon even destroyed a target satellite. Although Almaz tracked several American spacecraft, including Skylab, the Soviets never attacked any of them.

And so the question definitively answered.

I'd say an aircraft cannon is slightly different than just a regular gun.

 

[hiromizu]

oh god. I wish they'd just ban guns in space so we don't have to worry about it.

 

[spidey07]

Absolutely, without question. The oxygen is in the powder (PNO3, potassium nitrate, I think). That's like asking if a solid fuel rocket will fire in space - of course it will.

 

[thescreensavers]

Ah, an inquiry that warms the hearts of gun-toting physicists. The peacenik response might be...nothing. A gun cartridge holds the bullet or metal tip and the gunpowder (yup, they still use that stuff). The latter requires a spark, a nifty chemical reaction that involves oxygen, which tends to be sorely lacking in space. However, forward-thinking manufacturers have packed an oxidizer within the bullet casing. Whether that's sufficient for an explosive launch is up for much debate.

That doesn't satisfy our bloodlust, does it? We'll assume we can send the bullet on its merry way with the proper gun. The scenario then conjures up the classic physics poser of shooting the monkey. Since we find shooting a cute primate abhorrent, we'll sub in the garden gnome.

Where you're standing when you execute this maneuver, such as within a planet's gravitational pull, would affect the bullet's speed and path. As long as your aim is true, the bullet would travel a straight line (aka Newton's first law of motion) until some sort of force or object impedes it. Meanwhile, the recoil (Newton's third law) has pushed you back with an equal and opposite force.

The next question is, can you fire off another shot? A regular old earth gun likely won't cotton to its new environment and may seize up, blow up, or do something equally annoying. Plus, we've littered space with enough dangerous debris already, do we really need to have bullets go flying?

googled it and got this answer

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: zerocool84

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Yes. The russians even had a high caliber gun on one of their spy satellites in the 70's (?). It was intended to be used by the guys on it to take out other satellites if the opportunity ever arose. It never did, but I think they may have done a test fire of it.

That seems really unlikely, considering that most satellites aren't even remotely close to one another. You'd have to steer over to the other satellite which isn't even possible if they're in different orbits.

Yeah it would be all but impossible, plus the speed it would be going by you, I don't know why they bothered.

link

In 1974, the Soviet Union launched the Salyut 3 space station, code-named Almaz, which secretly carried a 23-mm Nudelmann aircraft cannon. According to Soviet cosmonauts, tests run on this very first space gun were a success?the cannon even destroyed a target satellite. Although Almaz tracked several American spacecraft, including Skylab, the Soviets never attacked any of them.

And so the question definitively answered.

I'd say an aircraft cannon is slightly different than just a regular gun.

a large shell still fires with the same principles as a tiny pistol; i have no doubt at all that a generic "gun" would fire just fine in space, just as they fire just fine under water (although the projectile obviously doesn't act the same).

 

[Venix]

Originally posted by: zerocool84

Originally posted by: Fayd

Originally posted by: zerocool84
The gun would freeze before they even shot it. It's -455*F/-270*C out there.

except there's nothing to transfer heat away from the gun, so it just radiates. radiating heat is a very slow process.

I'm no expert but wouldn't the sliding mechanism not function with a change of temp that quickly assuming it's made out of metal of course???

There is no quick change of temperature. Convection and conduction don't exist in a vacuum, so the gun can only lose heat through radiation. That takes a very long time.

 

[spidey07]

Regarding the slide on a handgun as to if it would cycle another round. I think highly unlikely, the energy that pushes the slide back would all go to pushing YOU back instead of the spring. A gas assist like an AR or AK...maybe, more on the no side as a a spring is still used on the bolt, the gas just "helps" close the bolt.

A revolver? Absolutely as the trigger mechanically moves the cylinder around.

 

[Modelworks]

If the recoil of a machine gun forces the barrel to kick upwards, and each round fired does the same, wouldn't it cause the person in zero G to spin in a circle upwards ?

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Yes. The russians even had a high caliber gun on one of their spy satellites in the 70's (?). It was intended to be used by the guys on it to take out other satellites if the opportunity ever arose. It never did, but I think they may have done a test fire of it.

That seems really unlikely, considering that most satellites aren't even remotely close to one another. You'd have to steer over to the other satellite which isn't even possible if they're in different orbits.

With Thrusters they could be moved. The Range of Fire/Accuracy should also be very high, so as long as you knew where the other satellites were and had an unobstructed path, it could possibly be very effective.

I'm guessing.

You can move around slightly in your current orbit, but it would take a tremendous amount of energy to change your orbit. In other words, you'd have to launch specifically for a certain orbit and you're pretty much stuck in it.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: zerocool84

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Yes. The russians even had a high caliber gun on one of their spy satellites in the 70's (?). It was intended to be used by the guys on it to take out other satellites if the opportunity ever arose. It never did, but I think they may have done a test fire of it.

That seems really unlikely, considering that most satellites aren't even remotely close to one another. You'd have to steer over to the other satellite which isn't even possible if they're in different orbits.

Yeah it would be all but impossible, plus the speed it would be going by you, I don't know why they bothered.

link

In 1974, the Soviet Union launched the Salyut 3 space station, code-named Almaz, which secretly carried a 23-mm Nudelmann aircraft cannon. According to Soviet cosmonauts, tests run on this very first space gun were a success?the cannon even destroyed a target satellite. Although Almaz tracked several American spacecraft, including Skylab, the Soviets never attacked any of them.

And so the question definitively answered.

I'd say an aircraft cannon is slightly different than just a regular gun.

Yeah, it's bigger.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: spidey07
Regarding the slide on a handgun as to if it would cycle another round. I think highly unlikely, the energy that pushes the slide back would all go to pushing YOU back instead of the spring.

Incorrect. The same physics still apply.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Yes. The russians even had a high caliber gun on one of their spy satellites in the 70's (?). It was intended to be used by the guys on it to take out other satellites if the opportunity ever arose. It never did, but I think they may have done a test fire of it.

That seems really unlikely, considering that most satellites aren't even remotely close to one another. You'd have to steer over to the other satellite which isn't even possible if they're in different orbits.

With Thrusters they could be moved. The Range of Fire/Accuracy should also be very high, so as long as you knew where the other satellites were and had an unobstructed path, it could possibly be very effective.

I'm guessing.

You can move around slightly in your current orbit, but it would take a tremendous amount of energy to change your orbit. In other words, you'd have to launch specifically for a certain orbit and you're pretty much stuck in it.

Something like that would be a one-time usage thingy. Might be able to hit multiple targets, but once you started there would be a limited time before the satellite fell to Earth or drifted aimlessly into space. I'd suspect they'd use a High Orbit for the dormant period, then start a decaying Orbit for when the satellite is needed to perform its' task.

 

[randay]

oh boy, this thread has gone from facepalm to shake head at humanity to amusing.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: spidey07
Regarding the slide on a handgun as to if it would cycle another round. I think highly unlikely, the energy that pushes the slide back would all go to pushing YOU back instead of the spring.

Incorrect. The same physics still apply.

You, in zero gravity, are no acting force other than your mass. So I guess it would all come down to one's mass and the springs force. You're right though, it's all a question of acceleration/mass. I misspoke when I said "all of the energy", it's between you and the spring.

dammit, don't make me think.

That leads me to believe a gas assist would have a higher chance as the spring is much weaker.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Something like that would be a one-time usage thingy. Might be able to hit multiple targets, but once you started there would be a limited time before the satellite fell to Earth or drifted aimlessly into space. I'd suspect they'd use a High Orbit for the dormant period, then start a decaying Orbit for when the satellite is needed to perform its' task.

Yeah, it would pretty much be a one-time use. And since these things are going so fast there's no use for a gun or any kind of warhead. All you need is to guide it to make contact and it's pretty much going to be vaporized on impact.

 

[DrPizza]

People actually thought that bullets need atmospheric oxygen??
What? Does it magically seep through the brass casing to get to the gunpowder after the primer has been struck? And seep quickly at that!

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: DrPizza


People actually thought that bullets need atmospheric oxygen??
What? Does it magically seep through the brass casing to get to the gunpowder after the primer has been struck? And seep quickly at that!

They never watched Mr. Wizzard and how much fun he had with gunpowder. I weep for our young'uns.

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: DrPizza


People actually thought that bullets need atmospheric oxygen??
What? Does it magically seep through the brass casing to get to the gunpowder after the primer has been struck? And seep quickly at that!

They never watched Mr. Wizzard and how much fun he had with gunpowder. I weep for our young'uns.

Mr. Wizard isn't the only thing teaching common sense, is it?
edit: wasn't (past tense)


Also, regarding freezing quickly in space. It's absolutely amazing that people don't realize how a Thermos works. Must be magic!

 

[Staple68]

only if it's on a plane on a treadmill

 

[Oceandevi]

Did nasa ever take fish to space? Can a fish swim in space!!1