Hey /b/ What would happen if you tried to shoot a gun in space?

>>713875584
the primer on the bullet would be struck resulting in the powder exploding resulting in a violent reaction

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYf6av21x5c

>>713875584
It nothing is on the way, it would in theory go forever into space

>>713875584
My guess is that there'd be enough oxygen trapped in the powder for at least an incomplete detonation.

>>713875728
Ha the shot, not the bullet
Here I dont know

Well, you would need something to push you back against the recoil. Also, your gun would overheat very quickly in space as there's no air to cool it.

>>713875728
It would probably orbit earth

>>713875584
"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"

/thread

>>713875584
combustion and propulsion with out friction or gravity interfering.

>>713875783
Gun powder contains its own oxidizer.
See: guns shot underwater

File: 1477329200386.jpg (269KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

269KB, 1000x667px

>>713875584
Nothing. No oxygen, therefor no combustion, the bullet will not fire.

>>713875584
Gunpowder has it's own oxidizer so the gun would fire but it would get very hot very quickly because there is is no atmosphere for convection

>>713875814
the temperature of space is -270c, if we assume there are no pockets of hot gasses, or direct sunlight messing with us. You are honestly telling me the gun would not cool because there's no air about it? Air would be insulative against the supreme cold of the vacuum if anything.

the gun would shoot a bullet you fucking dolt

if you fired the average high-power rifle from the retrograde side of the moon (right-hand side when looking at it from Earth) the bullet will just about deorbit and fall straight down to Earth.

>>713875814
space is about -260 degrees Celsius. you wouldn't need air to cool it.

>>713875584
Nothing would happen, would it? Don't you need oxygen for the gunpowder?

>>713876125
got it just before me

>>713875992
Good point tbh.

>>713876125
A sheet of metal in space will reach very high temperatures when exposed to sunlight because no atmosphere removes the heat absorbed. Out of sunlight it will reach very cold temperatures as no heat is supplied by any atmosphere. But what happened to a heated sheet of metal? Stays hot or gets cold?

>>713876125
A vacuum is a perfect insulator. I doesn't matter how cold space is if there's nothing to transfer the heat.

File: 1a34896u_1.jpg (277KB, 1300x1040px) Image search: [Google]

277KB, 1300x1040px

>>713876213

it's sealed in the primer with an oxidizer... itt retards

>>713875584
Space is fucking huge, so you'd probably miss.

File: 0026.png (309KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

309KB, 640x360px

The real question here... Has anyone ever shot a gun in outer space to find out for sure what will happen?
Theory and practice are two totally different things.

>>713876324
>Out of sunlight it will reach very cold temperatures as no heat is supplied by any atmosphere. But what happened to a heated sheet of
As soon as it's out of the direct sunlight of course it would very rapidly cool. Where are you getting this atmosphere removing heat thing? Atmosphere shields us down here on earth from the harshest of the rays, and provides a greenhouse effect holding in the heat when the sun goes down. Kind of like a buffer between your skin burning off, and you becoming a popsicle the second the sun goes down.

File: Railgun_usnavy_2008.jpg (342KB, 1920x1386px) Image search: [Google]

342KB, 1920x1386px

>>713875584
It would fire. The gunpowder already has the oxygen it needs to burn. A gun is already an air tight and isolated environment. It doesn't change anything by being in space.

It would actually fire the bullet a little faster than on Earth because there is no air resistance and air pressure fighting the bullet. The net pressure difference between the front and the back of the bullet would be higher resulting in more forward force on the bullet.

>>713876125
>>713876179

True that empty space is very cold but only because there is an absence of matter. It's not the same as cold as we know it in earth's atmosphere. A gun would heat up very quickly and there is no way to dissipate the heat in a vacuum.

File: 1478882212862.jpg (13KB, 264x234px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 264x234px

Cosmic radiation would set the bullet off before you could fire it?

>>713876587
Call up NASA and tell them the ISS doesn't need those fuck huge radiators then.

>>713876368
>what is blackbody radiation

You are just thinking about heat conduction. All objects also radiate heat as electromagnetic energy.

Have you ever been near a fireplace where the fire is behind glass, yet you can still feel the heat? That's the radiant infrared heat hitting you, not hot air from the fire.

File: full retard.jpg (50KB, 450x373px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 450x373px

>>713876800

>>713876640
you niggas need science. Here read up.
http://space.stackexchange.com/questions/3083/how-is-heat-dissipated-from-a-satellite-or-any-metal-in-space

>>713875831
Depending the distance between the shot and the center of Earth, at what direction is the shot, with what gun, etc...

>>713876640
>no way to dissipate the heat in a vacuum

Unless you want to include radiant (black box) cooling.

File: 1478332980309.jpg (68KB, 884x800px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 884x800px

>>713876854
I was gonna go with aliens, so no, I didn't go "full retard"

guessing severely low temperature will cause different components to fail and the gun to jam, due to thermal contraction

>>713875584
you have a gun shooting gun?

File: STS-133_International_Space_Station_after_undocking_5.jpg (2MB, 4288x2848px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4288x2848px

>>713876816
This

The big white things are radiators, not solar panels. The blueish ones are solar panels. They keep the ISS cool enough to live on.

File: stoprighttherehumanscum.jpg (44KB, 622x439px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 622x439px

>>713875584
Trick question.
Man has never been to space.
You'd never survive the Van Allen radiation belts you apes.

>>713876640
Unless we're firing a fucking minigun, we're not concerned with the trivial amount of heat build up in the gun in the first place.

>>713876829

damn, I always thought it was because the glass got hot as fuck.

>>713877062
someone needs to clear up just what kind of gun we're firing if you're gonna compare the level of heat dissipated from a gun vs the heat dissipated from the fucking space station.

>>713875584
the mass of the projectile times gunpowder energy squared will be how much it accelerates you with recoil that you cannot resist therefore you will float in space at the same rate until affected by gravity and the friction of a gaseous atmosphere

>>713877088
Have you ever fired a gun before? It's not a trivial amount of heat. Guns get fucking hot.

>>713876914
Yes, it's very incorrect to say there is no way of dissipating heat, but radiation heat transfer is minor compared to conduction and convection for most objects.

>>713875852
this

The Ruskies already figured it out:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almaz
ctrl+f cannon

>>713877300
got a bunch of em. worst case with maybe six 30 mag clips run through my mini 30 it MIGHT hit cherry red temperature here in space. But none of this is really here nor there. The radiant disipation is going to take care of most of the heat in very reasonable amount of time. I mean unless we're talking about a burn down test of an AK which there are plenty of youtube vids out there of it... I really fail to see where you're going with this

File: sddefault.jpg (57KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 640x480px

To people saying space is cold. watch this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WUugbcIE1I

It's both super hot and super cold. Skylab overheated because it lost a heat shield that kept it cool in space. Without that heat shield it was too hot to use until they could cover it with a makeshift heat shield blanket.

The gold blanket in this picture was a makeshift replacement solar shield to replace the one that ripped off during launch.

File: being_american.png (227KB, 413x310px) Image search: [Google]

227KB, 413x310px

>>713875584
>Fantasising about firing guns in exotic environments.

You realise that the gun is a metaphor for your penis, and your dreams of firing it are just fantasies about losing your virginity?

File: dog pipe.jpg (17KB, 295x400px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 295x400px

>>713875584
Modern ammunition contains its own oxidizer. It doesn't require an atmosphere to react. A gun can fire in space.

>>713877703
What, are you jealous your country doesn't have guns? You have no freedom, faggot.

File: oyveymyshaekels01.jpg (50KB, 429x363px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 429x363px

>>713877669
>gold blanket

>>713877491
True, but the weapon will be starting with a vely cold temperature, and both pistols and rigles can fire a shitload of ammo before overheating to a failure point. Any semi-automatic weapon in space should work just fine in normal operation.

(assuming the extreme cold doesn't prevent normal operation via thermal contraction or lubricants turning to tar)

>>713877254
I'm not talking about the gun heating up from firing.

I'm saying the gun isn't going to be cold if it is in sunlight. The side facing the sun will be scorching hot and the back side will be cold.

see
>>713877669

Skylab was one of the first space stations and a heat shield came off during launch. The temperature inside the lab was too high for humans to go inside until they could get a heat shield on it. It wasn't frozen floating out there in space, it was scorching hot.

>>713877703
>You realise that the gun is a metaphor for your penis, and your dreams of firing it are just fantasies about losing your virginity?


No flags, but I smell maple syrup.

>>713877669
Space is cold because no atmospheric mass - no convection/conduction.

Space is "hot" because of brutal unattenuated solar radiation

>>713877857
>overcompensating this hard

No need to call everybody else faggots, dude. The world has changed. You can come out whenever you're ready.

>>713877914
>The side facing the sun will be scorching hot and the back side will be cold.
have you ever heard of heat conduction?

>>713875584
What does fire need?
oxygen
What isn't in space?
oxygen
What propels a bullet?
a combustion
What are most combustions?
fire

Nothing would happen, gun wouldn't shoot.

>>713877977
>I smell maple syrup

You should ditch that shit, bro. It's one of the reasons why you're so fat.

>>713878131
see >>713877847

File: Durable-Emergency-font-b-Survival-b-font-Gear-Rescue-Space-Silver-font-b-Mylar-b-font.jpg (195KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

195KB, 1000x1000px

>>713877906
It's gold foil only a few atoms thick. Probably not even 1 or 2 grams of gold. It's gold plated mylar.

Ever used a survival blanket? It's almost weightless it is so thin. NASA uses gold because it is even more effective at reflecting heat than aluminum. Survival blankets are aluminum plated mylar. Same concept, cheaper metal.

>>713878131
>What does fire need?
>oxygen

Except that gunpowder is a chemical explosion that needs no outside oxidizer.

Think rocket, not jet.

Learn to chemistry.

>>713877907
The gun would over heat faster the heat aint being transferd no where

>>713875584
The gun fires
And since there's nothing to resist the bullet, it goes faster than it would on earth
>but Ya ned ocksigen!
Retard, there's oxygen in the gunpowder, it will shoot fine

>>713877907
Like I said before, the cold of space is not the same as what we consider cold on earth. Space is cold because there is an absence of matter. An object out in space is not going to get cold just from being in space, in fact if it is direct light from a star like the sun it will get very hot due to radiation.

>>713878346
>The gun would over heat faster the heat aint being transferd no where

I guess in space, there is no grammar, punctuation, or spelling, either.

>>713875584
NASA actually had armed astronauts around the Cold War times, might still do. Cosmonauts too. I'm interested in finding out the answer.

File: 1450569752591.jpg (71KB, 694x544px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 694x544px

>>713878213
Oy vey. But still, you realize I'd cause a 40 car pileup to pick up a penny in the road

>>713878445
Off by one, dammit

>>713878462
I was playing Devil's Advocate for worst case.

Since the weapon would likely be coming from the same place the astronaut and his suit would be, realistically though, it would be room temperature or higher.

>>713878576
lol

File: IMG_0022.jpg (5KB, 96x161px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 96x161px

>>713878346
Grammar Anarchy

>>713878555
Russia had a 23mm cannon gun on the Salyut 3 space station. They were afraid of Americans trying to intercept it or board it. The cold war was crazy.
"In addition to reconnaissance equipment, Almaz was equipped with a unique 23mm Rikhter (factory index 261P or 225P) rapid-fire cannon mounted on the forward belly of the station. This revolver cannon was modified from the tail-gun of the Tu-22 bomber and was capable of a theoretical rate of fire of 1800-2000 (up to 2600) rounds per minute. Each 168 gram (ammo 23-OFZ-D-R ) or 173 gram (ammo 23-OFZ-G-R) projectile flew at a speed of 850 m/s relative to the station. The cannon had a supply of 32 rounds and was tested at the end of the mission, when the station was operating in unmanned mode. To aim the cannon, which was on a fixed mounting, the entire station would be turned to face the threat.[7]

Salyut 3/OPS-2 conducted a successful remote test firing with the station unmanned due to concerns over excessive vibration and noise."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almaz

File: gotdamn.jpg (74KB, 940x492px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 940x492px

>>713879578
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqCrJc2b9kw

You wouldn't be able to pull the trigger.
All the parts of the gun would cold weld together rendering it inoperable.

>>713875584
American hicks would group ejaculate and yell freedom.

>>713879969
>weld
what?

It would be hot in the sunlight, but not melting steel hot.

>>713876640
Bullshit. Go back to grade school faggot and take physical science again. Heat can be lost through both radiation and convection. Without air convective losses will be reduced, but radiative heat losses will be unaffected.

>>713876423
kek

If your talking about being in space already and firing a standard weapon, I don't think anything would happen unless you put some oxygen inside the shell. If you managed to actually fire the weapon you would fly the exact opposite direction of the bullet. If your trying to shoot a gun into space you wouldn't be able to reach and maintain the escape velocity needed.

>>713875584
Guns work fine in space. The only issue is the standard oil/grease used. It would evaporate or freeze. They have silcone grease designed for use outside in space. Strip down the gun, clean it dry, replace with silicone. You're good to go.

>>713875584
define "space"
>are you inside of a vessel of some sort
>are you wearing a suit and outside of a vessel?
>what kind of gun?

>>713880220
Thats only if you actually made the gun in a vacuum or gunsmithed it in space. The small layer of oxide that forms would prevent cold welding from happening.

>>713880294
I corrected myself>>713877491

Also, convection wouldn't be reduced it would be all but eliminated.

>>713880685
Everyone knows if your in space shooting a gun, its laser based. You only use your regular gun to kill a few covenant and strip their bodies of the laser weapons.

>>713875678
Combustion requires oxygen.

>>713880483
>If your talking about being in space already and firing a standard weapon, I don't think anything would happen unless you put some oxygen inside the shell.

Gunpowder contains a chemical oxidizer. No free air oxygen needed.

>If you managed to actually fire the weapon you would fly the exact opposite direction of the bullet.
Add mass to that equation, and while Newton's Laws would be in effect, the shooter side of the equation would be minimal.

>If your trying to shoot a gun into space you wouldn't be able to reach and maintain the escape velocity needed.

Escape Velocity is only need to get into space. (Yes you need to maintain it for proper orbital mechanics, but that's a different issue)

>>713881107
what is an oxidizer you massive retard? KN03 is in gun powder

>>713876579
the ruskies strapped a aircraft cannon to a space surveillance station in the 70s and tested it once successfully.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almaz

>>713877031
uh no

>>713875678
/Thread

File: Fool.jpg (84KB, 670x367px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 670x367px

>>713881107
This>>713881243
Also, they did this on Mythbusters and the gun fired in a vacuum.

File: 1480275966924.jpg (294KB, 750x1000px) Image search: [Google]

294KB, 750x1000px

>>713879105
gramarchy?

>>713881107
Well it's a good thing there's oxygen in the rounds

>>713881479
>uh no
Glocks would'd do so well.

Assuming low temps of shaded space, polymers would shatter.

Assuming high temps of solar lit space, polymers would melt.

Assuming temps within normal operating range, they'd just grenade, like on earth.

>>713881622
Mythbusters was glorious.

>>713882335
Funny the fleet of 40+ glocks I maintain for my department don't Blow up. 40k+ rounds a year. Seems like you're a moron.

The bullet would be sucked out of the case because of the difference of air pressure inside and outside the shell.

This would happen long before you got to fire the weapon.

File: Lighten Up Francis.jpg (17KB, 275x275px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 275x275px

>>713882753