CrazyIvan did a good job of explaining the basics. Thank you.
Now remember this is all relative. the earth is moving around the sun, so a stationary satellite is only stationary relative to the earth. And the sun is zipping around the Milky Way galaxy. and the galaxy is moving in relationship to the local galactic cluster, and so on.
shoot a gun attached to a space station and you are going to accelerate it in some direction. that might increase or decrease it's orbit or it might send it spinning, but it will have an effect. once it starts to move it will continue to move until a counter force is applied.
Noise? Only if you happen to be in a place where the expanding gases from the powder might hit your spacesuit or ears, also as mentioned above.
Heat? Tenman nailed it.
Temperature in space? What you think about that one depends on how much you know about heat vs. temperature vs. thermal energy. Typically we define temperature as the average kinetic energy of the moving particles of a substance. Thermal energy is the total kinetic energy in all the particles of a substance. An iceberg contains far more thermal energy than a cup of hot coffee, but the coffee will lose energy (only when it's moving from place to place is it properly called heat) to the iceberg since the temperature is higher.
Since in space there are very, very few particles of anything, they could be moving at a high speed and therefore have a high temperature while the area surrounding them (space place?) would have very little thermal energy present. The atmosphere has some extraordinarily high temperatures as you run toward the top of it, but there is not enough energy in the widely scattered particles to make any difference. You will lose your thermal energy through radiation far faster than you might be warmed by the extremely scarce but energetic particles (mostly parts of atoms at that level, so of nearly insignificant mass) bumping into you. In other words, even though the temperature might be several hundred or thousand degrees, you would still freeze solid pretty quickly.
Trajectory has been well covered, as has recoil. It is mass, not weight, that affects which of two objects is accelerated by how much when a force such as the burning powder acts on both of them. The acceleration is equal to the amount of force divided by the mass.
Don't forget the friction of the bullet with the barrel will enter into this some, as well as the change in angular momentum imparted by the rifling. That torque you feel when firing a hot load in a 1911 will tend to spin your whole body as you are accelerated slowly backwards.
Muzzle velocity will be very slightly higher because the burning powder does not have to accelerate a barrel full of air in addition to the bullet.
__________________ Teach
ALL who work for a living must vote to outvote those who vote for a living.
I believe velocity would be a tad lower because the excess powder will not burn up think about shooting a snub nose revolver and one with an 8 in barrel. Since there is no O2 in the barrel the excess could not burn unless i suppose it was supper oxidized when loaded and had enough to go around. as far as temperature one side of your barrel would never cool and one would always be cool or if your body was shading the gun when fired the metal could crack from goin from really hot to really cold fast like taking a glass straight from the dishwasher and putting ice in it. Your stock would also either melt or catch on fire unless it was a pistol with all metal parts. On the recoil, You wouldn't feel it since it would move you back right just like felt recoil is much less from a standing position than bench because it's spread over a larger area basically and this would be spread over an almost infinate area right?
Honestly think that lasers would be much more effective the air-force already has heat/light emitting "lasers" that would (in theory) be much more effective in space (due to lack of recoil) then any bullet. --"what will the guys at the lab think of next?"--
Location: The Land of the Ice and Snow..... Alaska
Posts: 4,429
Quote:
Originally Posted by 22cowboy
Honestly think that lasers would be much more effective the air-force already has heat/light emitting "lasers" that would (in theory) be much more effective in space (due to lack of recoil) then any bullet. --"what will the guys at the lab think of next?"--
I agree, I dont think a gun will ever be needed or fired in space. We are advancing to the point it will either be a rocket or some sort of heat or lazer weopon or rail guns. A rail gun would be far more affective in space then a Discharge from a form of fire arm. Im sure there are things that are being devoloped that the public does not know of, how ever I dont see us having a space battle in 5 years haha.
And I find what every one has said very interesting. These topics have always interested me.
__________________
God Speed Arkansashunter, Ezearln, SwedeSteve, You guys will never be forgotten.
i say velocity would be slower because the firearm would move you backward with greater force(talk about recoil). for every reaction theres an equal and opposite reaction...in this case there is also no wieght, friction, nor atmoshpere to stop you from goin as nearly as fast backward as the bullit is goin forward.
of course if you weren't in the shade heat from the sun would ignite the ammo for you 125*c and in the shade -180*c i dunno if gunpowder and primers would function let alone a firearm
1) Velocity would be slightly higher because the projectile wouldn't be pushing air.
2) Your body still has far more weight than a bullet, thus, recoil woul be no different in space. Your body, being at rest, will tend to stay at rest.
3) You would hear NO report or feel a concussion as air is required for either of these.
4) A bullet would travel at a consistant velocity for ever, unless enacted upon by another object or gravitational pull.
5) If you're in direct sunlight in space, the barrel would be VERY hot to the touch, thus, the barrel may expand and affect the bullet.
6) If you're NOT in sunlight, say, on the dark side of the moon, Your barrel temperature will be close to absolute zero in temperature and may shatter, killing you if you fire.
7) if you're in the "twilight" region of the moon, the ambient temperature may be (depending exactly where you're at) similar to earth. The barrel may cool adequately. I have never fires a weapon in space or in a vacuum, so I don't know for sure, but it makes sense.
__________________ Everytime someone sells a gun without buying another, a nice kitten is placed into a wood chipper.
Uh, guys, rocket engines on spacecraft are subjected to uneven solar input on a regular basis. It does not seem to affect them much. Thermal energy radiates away very rapidly in a vacuum and what doesn't is conducted through the steel, just like here on earth. I don't think you will find that thermal stress in a crystalline structure like gun steel will be anywhere near what is in an amorphous material that is a lousy conductor, like glass. The metallic structures on and in the shuttle and the space station seem to do just fine.
Metals are outstanding conductors of heat. Glass and other non-metallic materials are not. Stick a steel rod and a glass rod in a burner flame and hold each one in your fingers about 2 or 3 inches back from the flame to see what I mean. I guarantee you will drop the steel one long before the glass one, even though you can melt the glass and not the steel.
__________________ Teach
ALL who work for a living must vote to outvote those who vote for a living.
but rocket engines are allready done and used up by the time the rocket's in space, right?.
what do they use to move around once they're up there? compressed air?
__________________ Badges? We got no badges! i aint gotta show you no stinking badges!
Solar Sails was always a fantastic Sci-Fi concept. In space they use rockets, usually a combination of liquid O2 and a fuel, or an oxidizer and a fuel.
__________________ We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office. -Aesop
There still would be gravity. That is why we can keep satellites in orbit.
My statement was directed towards Newtons law... no gravity, no air resistance... If you really want to nit pick details... take into account Newton's law of universal gravitation.
Newton's law of universal gravitation states that every massive particle in the universe attracts every other massive particle with a force which is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.
Teach
the air-force already has heat/light emitting "lasers" that would (in theory) be much more effective in space (due to lack of recoil) then any bullet. --"what will the guys at the lab think of next?"--
!
