What would you carry in space?
Something American like a colt 1911 or smith and Wesson 29. It has to be American though, we claimed it first we get our weapons up there first
>>30664319
Crossbow
>>30664319
my cat
>>30664402
Only the moon. For earth orbit you'd need to carry a Makarov.
>>30664319
Wait, the gravity's low, right?..
For melee I'd probably use a small boat then. So I can hit them with my space ship.
>>30664424
>Crossbow
>Having to deal with massive bullet drop
>Losing momentum almost immediately after fired
Wow you're stupid, just carry a Glock.
G11
>>30664546
Mildly keked.
Assuming astronaut on cosmonaut action, probably a 2 or 4 bore shotgun loaded with birdshot.
A gazillion tiny pellets that will puncture suits and cause air leaks and depressurization, in a huge-ass cone. Add in negligible gravity and air resistance, and they'll shoot straight and retain their energy for any forseeable engagement distance. Plus, can be used as an emergency source of propulsion. Point boomstick in the opposite direction of where you want to go.
>>30664540
>Bullet drop
>Crossbow
>Bullet
>carry a glock
>Carry
>Glock
>Carrying a glock
>>30664540
>massive bullet drop
>in little to no gravity
pls
Personally I'd go for a .22 eargersplitten loudenboomer.
IDK about the recoil knocking me back into space but that round's got a lot of punch that doesn't have any pesky air pressure and atmosphere to slow it at all.
If you do the math....
Shooting an AK in space will knock you back about 2 cm.
So I would just take an AK.
>>30664319
Oxygen
phased plasma rifle in the 40 watt range
>>30664319
>in space
I wouldn't do that. If I shot a gun right in line with my orbit it would come back and hit me in the back. In space there is no air or gravity to slow the bullet down.
>on the moon
That would be plausible. You would just have to carry a weapon that won't jam due to moon dust. I'd carry a revolver for a pistol and a AK for a rifle.
>>30664595
Good luck.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_Micrometeoroid_Garment
Energy weapons that can recharge via sunlight or have a radioactive power pack. You don't want to need another heavy lift rocket every time ensign Billy mag dumps a moon beast.
>>30664319
Do you think the near total vacuum/low temperatures could cause a case failure? Oxidation isn't what I'm worried about, but metal can get brittle. Might actually want a caseless firearm
>>30664319
Still waiting for someone to say that guns don't work in space
>>30664779
>You would just have to carry a weapon that won't jam due to moon dust. I'd carry a revolver for a pistol and a AK for a rifle.
If the InRange mud tests are an appropriate indicator, you'd want an AR and a Luger P08.
>>30664820
Any gun that would survive a sand test would be good.
>>30664319
Rope, 10 gram stone
>>30664319
There is only one option.
A Jericho
>941F
>the F stands for "fuck slide safeties"
>>30664820
You also might want to carry a carbine or submachine gun. High caliber rifles would knock you on your ass in the low gravity.
>>30664319
>Ball
>Check
>Powder Horn
>Check
>Air Horn
>Check
Any other answer is for pussies.
>>30664820
>mud and dust are the same
>>30664779
Well, you'd essentially be bumping the bullet into slightly more elliptical orbit than yours. Also, the difference of even a couple hundredths of a degree between your prograde vector and the prograde vector of the bullet you fire is enough to make you miss by entire kilometers.
>>30664319
the tried and tested weapon
a sawed-off shotgun, the only weapon regularly carried into space (the soyuz always has one just in case they miss their landing and go straight into bear territory)
The only real answer
>>30664852
No
The movement rearward would be a few cm at most
>>30664851
Why do people dislike slide safeties so much? I've never had problems with them.
dumbfag here. Why dont guns work in space?
>>30665184
slide safeties aren't bad but frame safeties are better in every way.
>>30665184
Makes it an awkward pain in the ass to rack. At least that's my issue.
>>30665157
REMOVE AYYY
>>30665208
They do work in space. The main issue is heating/cooling. Radiant cooling will very slowly cool the gun. At very low temperatures the metals can stick together. Lubricant will either dry up or evaporate. At high temperatures after firing, the radiant cooling isn't enough to cool the gun so you have to limit firing.
Someone needs to post the "Mosins on Mars" screencap, i dont have it on my phone.
Also, assuming humanity has already discovered FTL, dispersed through a large number of systems and undergone at least 1 major and several minor conflicts, what would a Milsurp Shop on a space station or in a spaceport look like?
Hull-grade steel toed boots? Old military armored vacuum suits?
America is going to be so mad when China goes to the moon and removes the flag Neil put there.
>>30664820
What does "AR" stand for?
>>30665208
>>30665245
>what is cold welding
>>30665613
assualt rifle you fuckin idiot
>>30665613
Always Reliable
>>30664540
That wouldn't happen in space you stupid nigger
>>30664606
Is..... Is this real?
>>30665634
yes that's what I was referring to.
>>30664737
Except you wouldn't stop moving
>>30665659
Wrong. AR=ARmalite
>>30665725
Yes was made for world record attempt.
>>30665735
just shoot the other way
>>30665245
i thought i read once that the powder in a casing in space would be susceptible to self detonating from building up a static charge.
>>30664832
Nah, you would need to do a new test.
Look up 'fines'. They're micron sizes dust particles common in places like Mars and the moon. Anything that isn't hermetically sealed would get filled with it eventually.
>>30665613
Armalite. As in AR-15, The baby-killer of our time.
>>30664852
The energy is the same you fucking retard. If you are standing on the moon it might make you slightly more likely to be unsteady on your feet, but this shit isnt like an uncontroled firehose or anything.
>>30664894
For those long-range engagements, nigga
THE ONLY TRUE ANSWER!
>>30664807
But they do
>>30664402
>It has to be American though, we claimed it first we get our weapons up there first
I know this is b8 but ill bite
>First object in orbit
USSR
>First animal in space
USSR
>First human in space
USSR
>First object in Lunar orbit
USSR
First man on the moon
>USA
>we totally won guise I swear
>>30666212
fucking slavboos. I wish they would visit Russia and see what a pile of shit it is.
>>30666312
>all of these pointless things: russia
>the actual object of the space race and continued "firsts" to present day: USA
>>30665753
Aluminum Rifle
>>30666318
>implying I didn't
>Why would any of that matter for loving slavshit?
>>30666330
>the actual object of the space race and continued "firsts" to present day: USA
The actual objective of the space race was initially Venus(for Soviets - see Venera) and Mars(NASA). When they've realised that they're not going to do anything there but land a probe and have some scientific data and photos transmitted in the near future, Kennedy decided that we Moon now and Soviets took the challenge.
The reason is more complicated than just "LOL MUH DICKWAGGLING". Sputnik and Gagarin were a shock for American society and leadership because they were convinced that Soviets are 50 years behind them, technologically speaking. Many things were blamed - starting from "anti-math" educational reforms from 30's ending with some accusations of espionage. Landing on Moon has proven that the US can mobilise itself and lead in the technological race rather than just lag behind Soviets. Factually none of these "achievments" matters, if somebody would make a space programme for utilitarian rather than propagandist reasons, they would #1 tried to send FUNCTIONAL satellite used for communications and the like(you may say Sputnik was sort of like that, but not really), build space station for research and chain of supply for them and land probes and robots on planets. Landing humans on moon, sending humans to space(unless to deliver them to space stations) etc. are the least important things from scientific point of view and the most costly from economic one.
>>30666312
>First person to climb something
some caveman
>First person to climb Mt. Everest
Edmun Hillary
wow guess cavemen really did win the mountain race, huh?
>>30666318
>fucking slavboos
I'd be a slavboo for you if you'd give me AN-94 :^)
>>30666428
Considering the fact that there's only one nation able to reliably reach the orbit, I wouldn't compare it to climbing "something".
>mfw NASA is grounded for almost decade now
I'd probably go with a nail gun or something. All you need to do is poke a hole in the other guys suit and you're good.
12 gauge shitgun loaded with special 4# buckshot cartridges that have no propellant but the primer. Because there's no gravity on the moon the primer is all it would take to propel the bullets to supersonic velocities, the lack of gunpowder would also prevent the shitguns recoil from knocking me 100ft backwards.
Considering how quickly micro electronics are developing, i'd go with a bag full of tiny missiles, like miniature ATGMs. Propelled by small puffs of gas from an internal reserve, and launched by a some sort of shouldermounted backpack.
As a backup, a vickers gun sealed inside pressurized bag with just the barrel sticking out. The watercooled barrel would be inconvenient, but would aid in cooling the gun since heat is hard to shed in space.
>>30666458
Nail gun is fine too.
>>30664319
Harpoon gun. They work great in space and can puncture space suits. You could also use one to attach yourself back to something if you lose control
Something recoilless.
>>30665015
There are comets flying much faster than a bullet all over space, they aren't colliding with parts of themselves at any time
>>30666461
>shitgun
you better load those shells with your own shit anon
bring great shame upon the spess chinks and the ayylmaos
Something with as few moving parts as possible. Lubricants aren't meant to operate in vacuum and any metallic parts that touch each other directly would get vacuum-welded together. Also huge temperature fluctuations would make any automatic weapon jam.
>>30666330
>redefine the goal until you finally get there first, claim victory once and for all
>>30666492
tungsten disulfide is used as a vacuum lubricant.
temperature is pretty stable when covered from the sun and metal disperses the heat well.
>>30664319
The holy Boltgun.
>fukken xenooooos
Shiet...
>all those people arguing about soviet space programme
>meanwhile Europe and Asia don't actually exist and are made up by FDR administration
holy shit anons you're retarded.
>>30666439
Yes just ignore ula and spacex
>>30665753
Armalite Rifle
>>30664319
Laser
If trying to take down a big target, deployable casaba howitzer
>>30666330
frankly, the Russians have actually shot a gun in space. America hasn't done that.
>>30666524
Fuck yeah, private space industry!
https://youtube.com/watch?v=cKCU6WfLtjk
Take a knife. Hand to Hand combat in space will be the future.
>>30666562
Ayyy
>>30666564
if we're going melee them I'm taking a polearm
>>30665600
>implying we won't immediately send a manned mission to pull their plag, piss on it, get footage of us glassing china, and plant a much larger flag in it's place.
>>30666524
both of which have yet to proove that they can send men to space.
>>30666461
>the primer is all it would take to accelerate to supersonic velocities
Go get a physics 101 textbook
>>30666312
>superpower that still exists
USA
And thus the US won the space race.
>>30664756
>>30666935
>Cant even fly people into space anymore
>w-we won.
Sure the USSR was a complete commie shithole and deserved to colapse but they still won 95% of the spacerace.
>>30666312
>race
>be inna Indy 500
>Simon Pagenaud leads the first 199 laps
>Josef Newgarden finishes lap 200 first
>Pagenaud won the race! he was ahead the most!
This is stupid. It was a race, we crossed the finish line in 1969 and the Soviets never again put up a major fight.
Let's break this down another way
>putting artificial satellites in Earth orbit
USA/USSR completed
>animals in space
USA/USSR completed
>people in space
USA/USSR completed
>objects in orbit of another celestial body
USA/USSR completed
>manned missions to another celestial body
USA completed
In 1969 the space race was generally seen as over with a solid American/Western victory, especially when the Soviets openly scrubbed their plans to launch a mission of their own.
If the Soviets kept up and managed to launch a manned mission to the Moon or another celestial body in a timely manner, the Space Race would've continued, but a failure to do so essentially was the Soviets announcing their withdrawal from the Space Race.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/apollo-moon-khrushchev/
Even the Russians basically admit there was no way for the Soviets to keep up without Korolev.
This is all a moot point though, because both nations offered an astounding effort and contributed to the benefit of wider society. I personally hope that in the future space agencies, regardless of flags, can work together to further scientific progress in outer space. The Soviets and Americans both had fantastic minds, who were truly great men with great ideas.
>>30665613
Fucking lurk more peasant
>>30667228
>race
>be inna Indy 500
>Simon Pagenaud leads the first 199 laps
>Josef Newgarden finishes lap 200 first
>Pagenaud won the race! he was ahead the most!
It was more a case of run 10 races on different tracks, the USSR won 9/10 of those races.
>Even the Russians basically admit there was no way for the Soviets to keep up without Korolev.
This is 100% true and I agree with it.
Do astronauts carry a pistol with them to kill themselves in case they drift in space?
>>30667312
except each race is of increasing complexity and difficulty and the US won the most difficult/complex one.
>>30667312
>It was more a case of run 10 races on different tracks, the USSR won 9/10 of those races.
See, I don't see it that way, and the world doesn't/didn't either
It was a case of America being second in the race, sometimes by quite a bit, sometimes ever so slightly, and finally, in the final lap, the US opened up the throttles, went balls-to-the-wall, and pulled out way, way, WAAAY in front for an uncontested victory.
Korolev was a genius, and Soviet space innovation was shot without him, he was a great project manager and commanded much respect among competing Soviet designers, which was originally a good thing, leading to faster technological breakthroughs, but turned into a detriment with Korolev's death, when those factions went to war over which design was superior.
>>30667319
Yes hence the
>different tracks
The US won on the most difficult track, but the soviets won every other track.
Then again wasnt like half the engeneers in bot the US and the USSR germans?
>>30667336
>and the world doesn't/didn't either
Are you sure? I understand that most of the US doesent but most europeans that I have spoken to (including an astronaut) sees it this way.
>>30667364
Now? Maybe.
But I think that has a lot less to do with an honest historical perspective and more to do with the bleaching of American Exceptionalism from international historybooks.
For a long time, if you were a free nation, Uncle Sam was your uncle, too. You loved (or were forced to love) America out of sheer survival instinct, because if you didn't, the Soviets would steal your whole fucking country.
Now it's taboo to talk about how America supported and protected basically the entire ideology of Western democracy in the Post-War days.
For instance, where used to American military might liberated Nazi Europe (wrong), now the Western Front, lend-lease, and America in general were useless in the war (equally wrong)
In 1969, everyone from the US to Europe, to the Warsaw Pact to the Kremlin itself saw this as the undisputed nail in the coffin. The US won the Space Race, and the Soviets lost.
This was seen as doubly so with the second US mission to the moon, and the announcement that the Soviets made no plans to follow in the Americans' footsteps.
Downplaying American accomplishments in the Cold War is a knee jerk reaction to having been force-fed American Exceptionalism for decades.
>>30667345
sure, but the space race would have happened even if neither side utilized captured Nazi Germans.
Science is a collaborative effort by nature and even Nazi achievements were based on other non-Nazi's work. Braun was influenced by Goddard for example. He built some V-series rockets that utilized designs from Goddard's technical papers. When Sweden captured a V rocket and sent to the Allies, Goddard found it was almost an exact copy of one of his designs.
>>30664319
>Guns do actually get carried to space, though not quite to the void between galaxies. For decades, the standard survival pack for Russian cosmonauts has included a gun. Until recently, it wasn't just any gun, but "a deluxe all-in-one weapon with three barrels and a folding stock that doubles as a shovel and contains a swing-out machete," according to space historian James Oberg. The space guns are issued in case the cosmonauts need one back on Earth, so that they can protect themselves if emergency landing of their Soyuz spacecraft has left them deserted in a treacherous region. But still, cosmonauts in theory could shoot their guns before they landed.
http://www.livescience.com/18588-shoot-gun-space.html
interdasting
>>30664402
USSR beat you to it, sorry. With Salyut 3 (or ALMAZ 2 if you'd prefer that), they even had the first armed space station - damn thing wasn't particularly effective though as aiming its Rikhter R-23 revolver cannon required moving the entire structure and it had to be realigned after every discharge as the recoil invariably knocked it out of its orbit.
They've not exactly been slowing down, either, though to be fair, they're hardly alone up there. China has a seemingly quite successful space weapon program as well, and as far as the US goes - well, suffice to say, it's more than reasonable to assume that they're not banging rocks together either.
>>30666312
I'm not gonna be a retard and downplay the achievements of the Soviet space program, but actually putting a man on the moon /and/ getting him back to Earth is several orders of magnitude harder than any of the other milestones you've mentioned. Today, you can make some decent arguments about the capabilities of other nations rivaling that of the US - might even overtake them in the near future; arguably, they already have - but back then, America scored an absolute, unambiguous victory.
>>30667468
They also were meant to serve as a last-resort guarantee that even if everything failed, cosmonauts could take a reasonably easy exit option.
NASA disavows providing astronauts with firearms or suicide capsules and I'm inclined to believe it as the US government is pretty terrible at keeping things secret, but on the other hand, I'd be surprised if they weren't sending enough heavy-duty painkillers up there to kill a horse and then some if needs be.
>>30664319
This is an M41A pulse rifle. Ten millimeter with over-and-under thirty millimeter pump action grenade launcher.
>>30667645
what do those pulse rifles fire?
pulses
>>30667315
They don't drift off. They have tethers for that sort of thing
>>30664319
Accept no substitute
>>30664319
This sword
The only correct answer
>>30664546
The only right answer
>>30664319
I'd carry my cock because dispite being in zero gravity it would still weight a ton
>>30666312
>First object in orbit
>USSR
Operation Plumbbob
>>30666492
See? Mosin is the ideal thing to carry into spehs! Plus it would be aone damn useful melee weapon!
>>30667468
Oh, the famed TP 82. Having a machete as a stock on double-barrel sawn-off +extra barrel plus edition+ is so fucking orky it warms my heart. If only I could loot it!
>>30664540
>>30667603
>cosmonaut suicide method
There are better ways to do this in space.
And they weren't according to the article and wikipedia either. They were survival tools, had two smoothbore 40ga shotgun barrels and one 5.45x39mm barrel, a detachable machete, and a canvas stock that could be used as a shovel.
Soviet cosmonaut survival kits needed unique things like guns/shovels because Soviet space reentry was on land, while US spacecraft spashed down in the ocean. So while US astronauts had sea survival kits with things like water containers and desalination devices, sunscreen and sunglasses, the Soviet Cosmonaut kits that were meant for land had tools for defense against predators or unfriendly forces, or even hunting food. A ton of money and technological secrets were committed to each cosmonaut, they didn't want them eaten by a bear or captured by spies.
>>30666312
We did "totally won"
>>30667669
>what do those pulse rifles fire?
10 millimeter explosive tip caseless. Standard light armor piercing rounds. Why?
Garbage rod will operate anywhere you take it!
On Mars, on Europa, even on Rings of Saturn, no problem!
>>30664424
This, I'd get me one of those 9th century Chinese repeating crossbows.
>>30668002
Probably should've emphasized the "also" a little more. What you're writing about in your post is, of course, their primary purpose. Even the Soviets would've been unlikely to include a high-profile suicide device on the equipment roster - it's not exactly something most members of the public would understand, after all.
As for better ways - it depends on your situation, really. There's certainly other methods that aren't too painful though, yeah.
>>30664319
The hopes and dreams of mankind.
>>30664521
I agree, but between orbit and moon, or past moon, free game between the two, all other countries don't get to have their weapons in spess because they were lazy.
>>30664540
>Crossbow
>Bullet drop
>Anykind of drop in space
Also
>Space
>Carry a glock
>Carry
>A glock
>Carrying anything that doesn't originate in America or Russia
>The only two to actually go to spess
>>30668127
No need to go all meta here!
>>30664546
how was this not first reply
>>30665225
>>30667922
>Operation Plumbbob
>orbiting Earth
>not orbiting Saturn
>>30664319
>What would you carry in space?
A bolt action .17 WSM
In space recoil would either push you back or rotate your whole body, so the longer the barrel and heavier the gun the better. It would be the same force but less acceleration and give you more time to brace against something.
For the same reason you would also want smaller projectiles with the least mass relative to you. Small bullets would still travel 3000 fps indefinitely and all you need to be lethal is to pierce a spacesuit. On the other hand you could probably still use them inside a spacecraft and not damage as much.
Would use bolt action because I don't think gas systems would be as reliable in space, might be too much pressure and break something. Moving parts would also be an issue because oil based lubricants would vaporize very easily in a vacuum. High shot capacity guns would also overheat easily with no air convection.
An airgun with compressed CO2 might be the best if it can hold up to the pressure differences.
>>30664319
Football
This baby is the only gun fired in space to date. 23mm cheeki
>>30668018
should be germany vs USSR 2bh
>>30664319
Recoilless rifle of some sort. Maybe a gyrojet weapon. Something comparatively low heat (which is hard to disperse in vacuum) with low or absent recoil.
>>30667796
It already had overheating problems. You want to add a lack of convective cooling to that?
This
>>30664319
I'd carry my desire to impregnate alien women. Is there really an other answer than that?
>>30664319
>What would you carry in space?
no time to be half stepping with goddamn space nazis lurking about
>>30668910
> posting a rendering instead of the real thing
apply yourself
>>30666312
Only reason USSR "won " most of those is because while they were trying really hard to get stuff into space, the US was trying to figure out a way to get stuff into space, and back safely. That animal they sent to space? Fucking dead, RIP in piece doggo. US animal? Mase it back in one piece. Human? Same fucking story. Russia wanted to win at all costs. Regardless of "necessary casualties "
>>30668910
>>30669197
23mm you say? /k/omrades!
>>30668895
kek
>>30664319
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRiNMBGb9pY
>>30664851
> space cowboy
One time I wrote down a charsheet for a space gun nut/Jet Black type character for an RPG I never played. Weapons of choice were a glock in 10mm auto, flush mag for carrying, 4 or 6 extended mags on suspenders, plus that clownish 500S&W revolver. Because you never how thick the skin of someone you meet in space is. No extra bullets for the revolver, because if 5 rounds of 500S&W don't do the job, perhaps you deserve what's coming for you.
I wanted him to collect mouseguns as a hobby.
>>30666312
This is like saying you were in first up until the last lap so you still won the race.
>>30669029
neat
sauce?
Obvious choice.
>>30664590
>>30664596
>>30664606
>>30665695
>>30668250
Holy fuck can you people b any more retarded?!
>>30666515
AVE IMPERITOR! GLORY TO THE MASTER OF MAN KIND!
>>30664319
OG M16, none of that follow up "work in planetside jungles" shit. It was designed to work in space originally, but LeMay insisted it be given to security troops. The .223 round can breach a Soyuz easily.
>>30670079
>no forward assist
Good luck disassembling your rifle when it jams during an EVA.
Shotgun. Probably a magazine fed one so I'm not fumbling with shells in a space suit.
>>30666461
>Because there's no gravity on the moon
Yeah there is.
>>30670079
[Muffled it ain't me in distance]
has no one posted the only correct answer yet, the gyrojet?
>>30665157
4 hours in finder
>>30664319
.22lr with a beefed up heat dispersion system
The .22 will penetrate an enemy space man's suit, the recoil isn't unbearable, and I can carry a shit load of ammunition as well
>>30664319
Everything, because no gravity to weigh me down
I'll take one of these bad boys, shoot myself to Mars.
>>30664319
I guess he watched men in black too many times
>>30668797
As this>>30664796 anon points out, that's probably not gonna work since spacesuits are already made to withstand small, high speed objects.
>>30666218
I know they do, but some insist that they don't
>>30664319
Some food.
>>30667034
>cant fly people into space meme
Sure, and I'm sure the USAF isn't operating anything capable of spaceflight, oh wait...
And crashing probes into Venus isn't winning.
>>30664319
