http://www.livescience.com/18588-shoot-gun-space.html
>Fires can't burn in the oxygen-free vacuum of space, but guns can shoot. Modern ammunition contains its own oxidizer, a chemical that will trigger the explosion of gunpowder, and thus the firing of a bullet, wherever you are in the universe. No atmospheric oxygen required.
>The only difference between pulling the trigger on Earth and in space is the shape of the resulting smoke trail. In space, "it would be an expanding sphere of smoke from the tip of the barrel," said Peter Schultz an astronomer at Brown University who researches impact craters.
Is it true /k/? Can cartridges fire in space?
In my thinking I bet the primer would work. But would the powder itself?
Would muzzle velocity be much higher because there's no friction in space?
Would shots be incredibly accurate because of the lack of outside forces like gravity and wind?
We've had this thread hundreds, possibly thousands of times.
Yes, and the Soviets actually did it with autocannons back in the 70s, in case their space station was attacked by American Space Shuttles.
>>29848060
It is true that gun propellants contain their own oxidizer. So yes, guns would fire. I'm sure there are many things we can do to optimize guns in space, but they'd work as-is.
>>29848060
Your gun would heat up and melt very quickly because it cannot dissipate heat in a vacuum.
>>29848081
>space battles with M4s and Kalashnikovs
Do want
>>29848060
Yes it would work
Yes it would have more velocity
Yes it would not have shit like drop
BUT:
Heat management would be worse
Recoil would be astonishing, you would probably need thrusters on your back to counter the force
Possibly cold welding could occur? I am not a physicist, but an engineer I know once talked a whole bunch about parts of a gun fusing together in space.
>>29848081
This.
The bigger question is whether the gun will cycle (doubtful) and how quickly the gun will overheat in the vacuum of space (probably very fast).
>>29848113
So you're saying gas wouldn't vent back to the bolt carrier?
>>29848154
The extremely low-pressure environment of space might put a damper on the pressure needed to push a bolt carrier and Newton's Third Law means that recoil operated weapons might experience problems when floating around in zero g.
>>29848246
That makes sense. So it's pretty obvious guns would be far from efficient in space. What about electric nailguns?
Hell one hit with that would tear a niggers suit and depressurize him
>>29848267
Pretty sure soviets did something similar with high pressure Wather pistolsl
>>29848267
Seems like space is the place to use lasers as weapons.
>projectile travels at the speed of light
>no atmosphere in the way
>engagement distances likely to be very, very long
>gun will overheat
Nope,space is extremely cold
>recoil would kick your ass out
Then use small round like .17 hmt,it would have like amazing speed
>>29848330
>Nope,space is extremely cold
What's heat dissipation, anon?
>>29848110
The Soviets tried firing 30mm anti-aircraft guns from their space stations, but they had to stop because it kept knocking them into new orbits.
>>29848330
Materials lose heat through three processes.
Conduction, Convection, and Radiation.
Radiation is the only one of these that happens in space, and it's the slowest process.
>>29848320
Lasers generate even more heat than guns per joule. You'll be lucky to get an anti-personel turret the size of a small car.
>>29848352
The way I see it, if you're in space, you're going to need huge radiators and huge generators either way.
>>29848347
>>>29848110 (You)
>The Soviets tried firing 30mm anti-aircraft guns from their space stations, but they had to stop because it kept knocking them into new orbits.
Holy crap, this is deeply funny.
Did they just not consider this would happen?
>>29848320
not to mention that the force of a projectile leaving the muzzle would move you. laser weapons are recoilless
>>29848060
Yes, it would fire since it the propellant has an oxidiser in it.
Unfortunately it would overheat quickly, which is why everyone should switch backing to using water cooled vickers machine guns.
Pic related but in space and with space suits.
Khaki space suits.
>>29848347
>The Soviets tried firing 30mm anti-aircraft guns from their space stations, but they had to stop because it kept knocking them into new orbits.
You just made that up.
Ok so,in space we'll stick to old fashionned crossbows
>>29848246
>>29848267
Nugget Space Battles when?
>>29848381
Which bit? They did fit a gun to one of their capsules and successfully tested it.
>>29848060
Gee how can guns work without air?
>>29848396
That's a point, would flechettes be viable in space? I know they've got a lot of problems in atmosphere, what with tumbling etc
I think they'd work better in a vacuum.
A crossbow would be really deadly in space no ?
>>29848409
But Anon. There's oxygen in water.
There is none in space.
>>29848409
There's oxygen in water though dumbass, hence H20.
I swear, sometimes I dispair.
>>29848420
Wow retarded here
Water oxygen is unsuitable for fire
I'll explain in easy way : Bullets contain oxygen m'kay
Why dont we just send a gun to ISS with one bullet and test it while doing a spacewalk?
>>29848330
>"Space is cold"
How retarded can one anon be?
>>29848451
Do you know how much it costs per pound to send something into space?
>>29848458
Isn't that true ?
>>29848462
So? its for science. Just take off one shipment of donuts from the next supply rocket and its fine.
>>29848458
Not as near>>29848420
Or>>29848428
>>29848479
(you)
>>29848486
>would rather have astronauts munching on donuts instead of getting footage of a gun being shot in space
Spot the European
>>29848485
>I'm a faggot who doesn't understand basic scientistics
>>29848420
>>29848428
>>29848479
>Take out the next Donut supply
Hey, fuck you. Donuts are important to lubricate one's mind and do the math correctly v:
>>29848470
No, since space has no heat retention nor heat dissipation because it's a vacuum. You know how themos work? It's kinda like that with space.
>>29848462
Lots of items have been sent to space purely for novelty value. Pieces of the Wright flyer, a jedi lightsaber, gorilla costumes, etc.
>>29848525
For science!
>>29848499
>Hur dur there is oxygen in water so it must burn.
Right. So we can just make a fire underwater no? And also bullets have oxidiser already in them.
>Hur dur basics of-
Come on anon, you can do better than that.
Ugh. Talk about lack of imagination.
Even your space weapons are still derivatives of the AK and AR series.
>>29848420
>>29848428
>b-but anon oxygen and hydrogen burn
>water in its normal state is flammable
>>29848090
It can with radiator vanes or a liquid cooling system.
Anyway.
>Implying we get the required materials to make a gun that is suitable for space
How much would it cost? Also, wouldn't it be harder to have gunfights on space? I mean, there is literaly nothing to cover you from the straight-coming-bullets fired.
>>29848569
Without mentioning that the gun would impulse you backwards, if you don't have a thruster to cancel it.
>>29848535
>you can make a fire underwater
Yes, you can, you colossal faglord.
>>29848060
>fire gun
>no air to dissipate (heat)
>starts to radiate heat instead
>??????
>death
>>29848569
Magic
>>29848600
Just use one of these bad boys then.
>>29848609
Yes. But he is not using the oxygen on the water like the faggot stated. Also, he is clearly using the oxidiser on the tank.
Humungous Vigorous Faggot
Recently, these threads made me realize something.
/k/ is the dumbest board on 4chan. We, as a board, go full retard whenever physics (or anything outside our narrow area of interest, really) is discussed.
Contrast this with boards like /b/, /a/ or /v/ - boards you'd expect to be filled with less educated children. They can take general relativity to jokingly explain something like bad animation in a show or a simple image macro. Meanwhile at /k/ ... "HURR DOES WATER BURN?"
tl;dr: Why is this board so fucking stupid?
>>29848330
space is actually a vacuum which means that it is a great insulator, so when something gets hot it stays hot. There is nothing for the heat to dissipate into.
>>29848679
A symptom of autism is the inability to comprehend sarcasm.
>>29848676
You can use flares underwater though can't you? Fucking idiot, I'm surprised you've mastered your keyboard to the point where you can actually type words.
>>29848679
/k/ is the easiest to troll.
That's the problem.
>>29848808
>/k/ is the easiest to troll.
That's just one of the symptoms of stupidity, not its root cause.
>>29848832
Your mom is the cause, 'cause I put my dick in here.
How'd you like dem apples nigger.
>>29848808
kek, this.
>be me, couple weeks ago
>go into /arg
>ask them "what kind of ar can I buy for $240 and an Xbox 360 if I sell it to GameStop?"
>shitstorm ensues
I think /arg/ is the most retarded of /k/
>You could fire a firearm in space
>But it has shoddy heat dissipation
>Recoil can send you flying at high velocities
>gas/recoil operated parts will most likely fail to cycle the next round or face mechanical priblems due to space's environment
I guess this is the part were things like the gyrojet or smallarm recoilless weapons come to play.
>>29848060
>Is it true /k/? Can cartridges fire in space?
Can rockets propel satellites in space?
Fucking read a book.
>>29848320
They would be the best suited of any current-tech weapon.
Unfortunately, they put out even more heat per "shot" than a projectile weapon. Unless we could figure out a better way to dissipate or jettison heat they would have an impractically slow rate of fire.
>am now picturing a 'cartridge belt" for the laser battery that uses TECs/Peltier devices to transfer heat into jettisonable heat sinks
The only problem with that is they would either have to be small enough to not really pose a debris hazard, or have an aimed trajectory that lobs them into an atmosphere.
>>29848462
>Armstrong took a full set of golf clubs to the moon
I'm pretty sure nobody's gonna care if you took a pistol.
>>29849101
No. Only unicorn farts and opening beer cans will.
>>29848113
Heat dissipation would be an issue, but space is incredibly cold in the first place so...
>boolets still work inna space
>heat and recoil are major issues
>watercooling makes a big comeback
>have to radiate heat out of the water with fins or gas exhaust
Space rifles are gonna look weird AF
And use bigger cases/powder that neck down to 5.56 or 7.62 just to have extra gas to vent out to slightly counter the backwards thrust generated by firing
>>29849410
>cold
Only when you're in a shadow
Otherwise, the radiant heat from Sol makes most surfaces heat up to 150° to 200° Fahrenheit
>>29848381
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salyut_3
>>29848569
Any gun would work in space, you don't need any futuristic alloy polymer matrix resin. Metal works fine. Heat build up is more of an issue, but thankfully there are less niggers in space so with it being mostly all white people accuracy is assured and so less need for spray and pray, plus, being in space, the weight of getting ammo into space makes you want accurate rounds rather than mini gun style effects. Gun fights in space would be amazing, both visually and the fact that armour is heavy, and pretty much any shot to a space suit could be lethal, plus people flying off into space for lols.
> don't blow this annos mind by saying curved bullets WOULD work in space, A La movie "Wanted"
>>29849160
You're missing dragon dildos man. They go super fast in space.
