would it work?
I don’t think gunpowder can ignite in the vacuum of space
>>64714366Make gunpowder with built in oxidizer.
>>64714360Theoretically? Yes, but not for many round since you cannot dump heat without further extensive modification.Realistically? No, because russia.
>>64714370It already does.
>>64714366Shut the fuck up, retard tourist scum.Lurk for a year before posting.
>>64714360The bullets will circle around the moon if you miss and come back around and hit you
>>64714371you dont have to ask russia just do it
>>64714373Guns are for earth problems, not space problems
Yes, but the missing dust cover is the wrong direction. I assume its removed to vent heat, but what it needs as an integral brass catcher, and you can still control heat by adding fins and sinks to the sides, or maybe have a liquid cooling system that wraps around the trunnion. Its not as though weapons weight is an issue once its up there. Every piece of spent brass is another micrometeor that's going to fuck your shit up once its done an orbit of the earth, so the aftermath of a pitched gunfight is going to create a whole cloud of metal going mach 9.>>64714366modern ammo has its own oxidizer.
>>64714366>>64714370there's always at least one total retardnot sure if it's just people baiting or if people are really this stupid
>>64714366Sigh… let me ask you a question, can a gun fire underwater? Think on it.
>>64714377Gun is for your problem.My dick is for your mom's problem.
>>64714393would probably have brasscatchers, or, more likely, use captive belts (you're not gonna reload in space with those gloves on after all). the heat issue is gonna be the real killer, we're already struggling to keep astronauts cool
>>64714402Why would you? Anything you can kill with a gun underwater you can kill above the water
>>64714393No dust cover isn't doing shit to bleed off heat, especially in low atmosphere.
>>64714400anon you severely overestimate the amount of knowledge the average tard possesses. a lot of people are willing to just get by without trying to understand the world around them, especially when it's info that does not directly affect their daily lives
>>64714402If - hypothetically - gunpowder only provided half of the reactants, then underwater guns could use finely powdered sodium, ClF3 or other fun stuff like that.So the existence of underwater guns is not foolproof evidence that regular guns don't use oxygen.All this assumes some knowledge which the retard above lacks.
>>64714360We can do better, because shockwaves don't travel in vacuum.
What would you be shooting at? There’s no whitetail in space, you probably need the other astronauts to survive or complete your scientific objectives or whatever. >oh they’re from the other earth government We’re in space, why would geopolitics apply? Space people are different and have different rules probably
>>64714360Yes. But you would need to slightly modify your weapons, as vacuum would pressure weld metal on metal contacts, and heat would build rapidly so you would need a radiator or use coolant to keep your weapon from blowing up.
>>64714434>why would geopolitics applywhy do nations go to war?why did grug smash grug with rock, even before the concept of nations existed?as long as humans are there, and there are limited resources, there will be a reason for someone to bash someone else's brains out
>>64714360Ak without a dust cover and stock? Sure. Not sure about dusty environments like the moon though.
>>64714443Cooperation is better and if anything the contradiction would be between space people and earth people as Gundam and the Mars trilogy predicted
>>64714400witty meta funny guys that make everyone look stupid for the hilariousness of it all are more likely to get first post rather than a retard randomly stumbling into it
>>64714449>Cooperation is better*looks at current state of the world*yeaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh about that
>>64714492The reason we have a quality of life better than the other great apes is we cooperate like ant colonies an do it over thousands of years, getting all the ant colonies together as one is a bit tougher especially when the arms industry is for profit
>>64714402Yes
>>64714360what is it with fucktards being so intregued by aks with no dust cover, it's just a fucking spring you spastic fucking faggot.do you want to play with your boo-boo keys too you stupid piece of shit
>>64714360People were already bringing guns to space in 1960s
>>64714665Do you mind sharing your approximate age and the last time you had sex? Ive got a theory about why the tone of the board has been so bitter, joyless and perpetually asshurt these last few years, and it would be a great help if you could contribute a few datapoints.
If you're in a space suit and firing a firearm something has gone VERY wrong. Any shot you take is a kill shot since it compromizes your suit. I don't think we're ever going to have infantry assaults in space. Though one example I can see is some kind of moon base, and commandos raid it and take it over.
>>64715476That's what OP pic is referencing.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0zr1mnBQec
>>64714372>>64714400Honestly, the chemistry behind firearms propellant is an extremely neich subject matter. I scincerly doubt most members of the military and police understand it at all. I am confident, however, that insecure people on the internet like put other people down by demonstrating their specific (and often useless) knowledge as a means of self reassurance.
>>64715643>like put other people downbrown hands
>>64714360Yes, but there will be problems with recoil and overheating
>>64714360we've had this discussion before.guns in space would work, the problem is heat accumulation.the weapons would need detachable heatsinks that can be dumped after each mag is used up.those heatsinks need to be able to pull away most of the heat from the barrel, and control group.tolerances would also need to be adjusted to work from -150F to 220F
>>64715974bingoif you aren't standing on something, get ready to get moving
>>64714416Counterpoint: deepwater Jews. Good luck getting one out of the water, and their US puppets would block an attempt to nuke them out of the hadal.
>>64714891>Ive got a theory about why the tone of the board has been so bitter, joyless and perpetually asshurt these last few yearsAre you suggesting lack of pussy to be the root cause of all global instability?
>>64714427You are stupid as fuck with a wildly inflated ego that you have not earned or deserve.
>>64714433How are you compensating for recoil?
>>64715974>>64716028I wish shattered horizon was still alive
Micro missiles.
>>64714400most people dont know this has been critically addressed and that it is possible to shoot guns in space but without science to back it up how the fuck could you believe it?
>>64716083It got a wire, you just need to point it in the general direction. Don't hold it let it recoil towards the cosmos, the only recoil felt would be the plug getting yanked.
>>64714402No, retard>b-b-buh I saw it on muh teebee science shows!go try it yourself and have your mind blown
>>64714402>He doesn't know about the eldritch abominations lurking just off the coastlines of RussiaHeh.
>>64714360No, Russia is currently unable to deliver men to orbit, and they have never in their history been able to land men on the moon, nor did they come close.
>>64716028get moving really slowly. mind you. the same energy that makes bullet go really fast now has to move the body that weights about twenty five thousand times more . For a 100kg spherical astronaut in vacuum firing from center of his mass, single shot of 5.56 would give him 3.7 cm/second backward speed. In burger units thts 1.5 inches per second , or 0.08 mph . Of course this is cumulative with each and permanent until some other force acting in opposite direction counteracts it, so minute after that shot you would be 90 inches away from your original position. Still the force is low enough you could easily brace against something heavy, ike ship's hull, and stay in place (of course then the ship you are bracing agains ship would in turn gain 0.0000069 m/s delta v change)
>>64716359Stupid question. If you were to fire a machine gun in space that allowed you to fire enough ammo for up to an hour, would you be moving as fast as the energy that the cumulative ammo spent on you? I would think so, unless it was like you said, where you keep speeding up with each successive shot until another force acts upon you in the opposite direction.
>>64714449>contradiction would be between space people and earth people as Gundam...predictedThe One Year War kicks off with the Zabi family purging their political rivals before it immediately begins attacking other Sides with its preferred method being genociding colony populations with nerve gas.
>>64716083Ride it.https://youtu.be/siwpn14IE7E?si=rT93ki2Rgi4XqJJP
>>64714487FPBP is a bot that sets you up to make "first posts"
>>64714393Now hold on with your brass catcher, one viable way to get rid of some of the heat off would be to toss the fucking brass to get the heat energy out of the system. Otherwise you're just accumulating energy. And really, if you're already shooting fucking rifles in space I doubt you're worrying about space debris at that point.Really there are 2 viable ways of dumping heat in space for firearms. Water cooling loop that goes to a large radiator(obvs not one you carry)/heatsink backpack or some sort of heat transfer through mass loss. You basically get something, the brass, a liquid, whatever, hot while shooting and then dispose of that, getting rid of the energy. Anything else is a nonstarter really.Heat sinks/radiators on guns? For the amount of heat they generate, you'd have to have gigantic heatsinks or radiators to get rid of it before melting down. So you're basically tethered to a hose that transfers the heat away with water to be radiated away somewhere else. Or I could imagine the aforementioned heatsink backpack that just takes the heat and tries to dump as much of it out of the way, but that'd be a pretty bulky backpack.So my solution would be to toss the fucking brass and make system to get more heat away. Open loop of some liquid perhaps, or maybe tie it with the magazine system. The magazine "charges" the cooling system and collects it for disposal with the mag. The gun would still get really fucking hot over all, but this sort of system would actually be able to get that energy out of the system fast enough to matter, i.e. not only relying on radiation, which is the only way you're gonna get rid of it otherwise. If this sounds familiar, this is what Mass Effect 2 did when they wanted a "reload" system in the game, the reloading was getting heat out of the gun. Funny though as they used them in atmosphere most of the time, but still. Same princicple.
>>64714366This, also there is no gravity in space so even single shot will cause you to spin out of control
>>64716410Yes, if you're shooting anything away from yourself it's a propulsion system. It wouldn't be a very mass-efficient way to do it though, because all the mass of the casings/primers/bullets is not required for a typical chemical rocket, and I don't think most gunpowder formulations are dV optimized.
>>64714366Sure it can, it contains its own oxidizer
>>64716623>>64716637That sounds more like the actual answer is a suit mounted weapon with integrated heat and recoil management using joystick controls and and a HUD for aiming.
>>64714393>modern ammo has its own oxidizer.Even blackpowder does. Its what the saltpeter is for.>>64716623>>64715828>>64714438>heatIts overblown. Space habitats are hard to keep cool because you need them to be at human temperatures over long terms with constant heat generation inside and massive temperature swings outside. A rifle barrel doesn't care much if its at 20C or 200C and the thermal mass of the barrel is the same no matter where you are. The hotter it gets, the more the temperature voiding is dominated by radiative effects, even on Earth.Your barrel life will be shorter and there'll be accuracy effects, but a rifleman isn't making the barrel fail with his ammunition load. He doesn't need cooling, especially if you give him a heavy barrel or go for overkill with a spare a quick change barrel.An LMG or GPMG could use cooling, but you've got to compete with the cost, weight, reliabilty, complexity of cooling vs just changing barrels more often.
>>64714449>cooperation is betterWhy should we Superiors let our enemies have anything?
Unrelated to OP’s question, but why the fuck would anyone want to colonize the solar system? Let alone go beyond the solar system? Space travel is a fucking nightmare. There is no Star Wars full of life and a rich history of empires and an ancient republic. It’s all bullshit dreamt up by man. There is nothing out there. NOTHING. Risking life and death and never seeing your family again for what?What’s wrong with just staying on earth and trying to figure our shit out? We haven’t even colonized the entire ocean yet.
>>64714393>Its not as though weapons weight is an issue once its up there. It sort of would be. Like, sure, weight isn't an issue but mass is - an excessively heavy water cooled gun would absolutely be a bitch to aim.
>>64714393>just add some fins to conduct heat to the air that isn't there
>>64718764Because I would rather fly to the opposite end of the fucking universe and live in a pressurized bubble one micrometeorite from death, drinking my own recycled piss than spend one more minute listening to you be a little bitch.
>>64718764Honestly? Resources. Asteroid belt is full of minerals if the human race ever manages to figure out how to tap into it. Building a massive space station designed to harness solar energy to channel back into the Earth for unlimited power for the world. Then there's manufacturing. Certain things require the use of toxic/dangerous chemicals can be shifted into space. Zero-G manufacturing could also be a thing as well. Lot of reasons to go into space. Biggest hurdle is crossing the void since humans haven't figured out FTL. Just getting to the moon takes about 4 days.
>>64714360it would shoot, but for how long it would depend on temperature and lubrication
>>64718796Not him, but you can use fin radiators in space. They increase the surface area you can radiate from, but they have additional constraints in that ideally you want to orient radiators so they don't have line of sight to each other. Sometimes its worth it though.Pic related is the RTG for Apollo 14's ALSEP which used the fins for heat rejection for the cold side of the thermocouples.
>>64714402Sigh... H2..O Think on it.
>>64714393The dust cover would actually help the head problem a bit just by virtue of having extra metal there to conduct heat.It it were me I would make the AK heavy as fuck with lots of conductive metals tacked on. 2 seconds of heat dumping, then it can cool off for 3 days in the ship.
>>64714393>>64714360Not only would a dust cover be incredibly important because lunar regolith is about a billion times worse than anything similar on Earth, but you'd almost certainly use caseless ammo for the weight savings.
>>64718863Caseless ammo dosn't carry heat away like hot brass does.
>>64716359Right. So what you want is a railgun
>>64716084
>>64718871NAYRT but cases don't carry away as much heat as you're assuming either. Firing 200 rounds instead of 220 is less impactful than what you could with the kilo of weight you free up by switching to caseless, even putting aside logistics.Or better yet, do PCT and get better heat rejection than brass with most of the weight savings as caseless.
>>64714371You can't dissipate heat anyways because there's no air to exchange heat with.
>>64718764>There's nothing out there. NOTHINGtentacled hands typed this post
>>64718764if you control space, controlling earth gets real fuckin' easy.
>>64720092This just in, thermal radiation no longer transmits energy. Earth to freeze as Sun can no longer warm planet.
>>64716083Recoil doesn't travel trough a "light weight wand"[cardboard tube].Boomstick goes Boom. Cosmonauts die. Astronaut just sees a flash and a big cloud of dust and particles.
>>64714360Yes but it'll be finicky. Normal lube would dry up and metals cold weld so every so often the gun would seize up for no reason and you'd have to give it a good whack. No air means no air cooling so you'd have to be careful in longer gunfights. >>64720092You can radiate heat as black body radiation. It's definitely slow, tho. >>64718838By that logic water should burn easily. It does not. >>64714427Actually, the traditional formula for gunpowder involves Saltpetre which is an oxidizer.
>>64722548>Recoil doesn't travel trough a "light weight wand"[cardboard tube].Yes it would. Or, more precisely, the recoil would travel through the struts and mesh when the wand crumples and the remains of the weapon smack into the user.
>>64718764Redundancy. Earth might get fucked by some cosmic event in the future that we can't prevent. rogue black hole traversing the solar system. Or just humans fucking up the biosphere somehow.Having backup is always good. But yes, you have to work for it.
>>64722589>make "lightweight wand" and "struts" out of ultra-weak and flimsy materials>weapon is used>"wand" instantly evaporates and/or crumbles before transferring harmful force to the user (can't transfer harmful force if the material is strong enough only 10% of the force needed to cause harm)>"struts" and other materials around the charge are just flimsy cardboard and foil>tiny sub-gram fragments of cardboard and foil don't have nearly enough mass and energy to pierce or otherwise significantly harm space suit despite traveling at several Km/sec lrn2phyciks fagit.
>>64722572>ActuallyI'm aware, hence a hypothetical.>water should burnI did mention things that would combust with water for a reason.
>>64714360For a sec I thought that was one of the suits from Moonraker.
>>64722623If it's moving fast enough a grain of sand can DEFINITELY kill you. But that's besides the point. This thing will definitely send you tumbling.
>>64722823>If it's moving fast enough a grain of sand can DEFINITELY kill youTrue. But it would have to travel at absurd velocities to do it.In this case, we're talking about detonation velocities in the 7km/sec range at the very most.That's not nearly enough for sub-gram particles to blow significant holes in space suits, or to cause lethal wounds to human flesh, even if said flesh was bare and not protected by a space suit.>This thing will definitely send you tumbling.No, it wouldn't.You're understandably making assumptions about how explosives work in air, then applying them to a (near) airless environment, or in an environment with an extremely thin atmosphere, it wouldn't work like that in real life.Consider:A depth charge can destroy or seriously damage a sub from a great distance, several hundred feet or even several hundred yards if the bomb is big enough. That's because water is practically incompressible and the shock of the blast is transferred to the sub very effectively. If you dragged both the sub and the depth charge out of the water, and exploded the charge the same distance away from the sub on land, and there was only air to transfer the shock, it would do fuck-all damage to the sub, because air is far less dense than water, very compressible, and thus far worse at transferring the force.Take this to an extreme. Palace both the sub and a 500lbs depth charge in a vacuum, then detonate the depth charge 20ft away from the sub, and the depth charge would do fuck-all (excluding shrapnel, which isn't relevant to the astronaut stick-bomb scenario, since we've already established that cardboard dust isn't dangerous at such relatively low velocities) because there would be NOTHING to transfer the shock to the sub. All you have is a sudden bubble of combustion byproducts that rapidly reaches a peak pressure before dissipating. The lethal/harmful radius of explosive shockwave is orders of magnitude lower in vacuum than it is in air.
>>64722623Pain flecks can puncture your suit in space. So presumably you are armlring space suits and dealing with the issues that will come with that.
>>64714366I was once like you and then learned that modern ammunition does in fact contain its own oxidizer
>>64722910Well first off, you're ignoring shrapnel from the explosion and second you're assuming that the shockwave is relevant here.Shockwaves only really apply when you've got some sort of medium. Since we're talking about space we're talking Newtonian physics and Newtonian physics says the gas has mass and smacks into the user
>>64723123That's certainly true for Blackpowder (it's the saltpeter) but as far as I can tell, I don't think modern Nitrocellulose powder even needs oxidizer. The molecule already contains a lot of oxygen and the reaction tends to produce Nitrous Oxide as a byproduct. Not disputing, just saying the world is really weird.
>>64714433How is a clunky single shot weapon with a minimum safe distance and inability to be used in tight quarters better?
>>64714360love me some moon goons
I was gonna ask if this was from that game Boundary that died but it says it on the arm patch. Why did that game die? Was pretty fun.
>>64716065
>>64718831I can give you over forty thousand reasons why I know that sun isn't real.
>>64714360The only issue is firing a gun in a vacuum does not allow for heat dissipation. It would work fine until the the gun started to get hot as fuck. In the space future wars, liquid cooled shrouds will make a come back.
>>64724265That and cold welding. Cold welding is mostly just an annoyance, tho, and isn't a problem if you use the right dry lube.
>>64726135Cold welding is an issue for fragile things like wafer-thin gold reflectors, because when you pull on them they break instead of releasing. If your bolt "cold welds" itself to the chamber extension you won't even notice a difference when you go to charge your weapon.
>>64724265>>64726135Guns with tacked on gold heatsinks and Blu Gel lube cooling are gonna be so lit
I wanted to ask that in astronomy in college but I pussied out
>>64716028Just shoot in the other direction, if your aim is good and your ammo consistent it'll perfectly arrest your momentum
