An idea

Why would we ever have to fight in zero gravity? If anything it would be on planets and onboard ships.

Also even if you center it you still fly backwards. You either have to rig up a complex and likely inefficient stabilizing suit or use a different weapon altogether.

>yfw we literally go back to fighting with swords and bows in space

Wait what would a bow do?

>>31015139
>Wait what would a bow do?

same thing as a gun.
Any projectile will have the same effect.

The problem stands.

File: image.jpg (18KB, 134x145px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 134x145px

>>31015008
youre a retard

>>31015008
Just shoot from center of mass.

Op your doing it wrong. You fire from each shoulder alternatively.


Our future is ambi.

A second thought:

Scientists say that the universe is beige-colored, so desert camo is statistically better than forest.

>Writes Sci-fi

>Realizes there needs to be a stabilizer to keep a soldier oriented correctly in space while engaging targets

>Devise an idea: Attach a gas capture/release system to the weapon and soldier, connected to the gas feed system.

>Once the weapon is fired, the gas can either be used immediately to advance or change direction/orientation, or collected in a small tank to create a reservoir to use later.

>>31015162

Probably some chest mounted exo rig with a turret in front

>>31015170
Your center of mass is below your shoulder.
Now you have to practice backflips instead.

>>31015187
You'd have to lose the same amount of momentum as the bullet gives each time you fire. This means using a huge amount of gas for larger caliber.

>>31015187
We could do this on earth. If you time it right you could jump higher for example. Like a rocket jump but then with the gas from the weapon you're firing.

>>31015208
Perhaps mixing it with another gas to supplement the system?

>>31015008
The easy solution to this is recoilless firearms.

>>31015232
No, I mean
every time you fire a .45, you have to also fire another .45 opposite your body to keep from rotating, and 2 .45 behind you to keep from moving backwards.

Do lasers have recoil?

>>31015274
A negligible amount (photons aren't exactly heavy). They work through transfer of thermal energy to the target rather than kinetic.

File: 13428494_1021597464560998_1444039815342819186_n.jpg (10KB, 480x399px)

10KB, 480x399px

>>31015256
...What? The gas system would be utilized to stabilize the soldier as he's firing. That means wherever the gas needs to go, after we test it, can be done. Small gas valves on an EVA suit would probably mitigate what you're talking about.

>>31015292
I think he means you'd need to use the equivalent amount of energy imparted by the bullet to counteract it. Gas isn't very dense so you'd have to use either a huge amount of it, or do it at high speed. Or both, which is typically called a rocket engine.

Honestly just firing another bullet the opposite direction at the same time would be easier.

File: gyrojet-1.jpg (18KB, 532x335px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 532x335px

always an option

This is why laser rifles are always a thing in future settings.

No recoil, no explosive gasses, no problem.

>>31015147
The energy released from the bow is absorbed into the bow itself. In any case the recoil of propelling an arrow isn't going to throw you back with too much force.

A firearm would have to be desired that absorbs it's own recoil, similar to the an94 or Barret fiddy cal but it would have to absorb it entirely. 22lr might be a viable option, but then armor might come into play. Especially considering weight isn't a thing, you can just pile armor onto someone. Shit, imagine a battle on the moon. You could be wearing like level 8 plates and be fully mobile. We'd need bigger guns, way bigger.

We would literally become space marines.

>>31015331
Light has a little mass.
Boatloads of light has quite a bit of mass.
This is still a problem.

>>31015360
Have a better alternative?

File: 1206794524003.jpg (13KB, 338x224px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 338x224px

>>31015337

>We'd need bigger guns, way bigger.

Shoulder mounted 30mm bullpup auto-cannon? Pic related but in 30mm.

>>31015337
The recoil "absorption" of those guns you mentioned is just delaying it, spacing it out over a longer period of time. The same amount of force is applied.

And weight isn't a thing but mass is, the more mass you have, the more propellant you need to more around anywhere. So it would work to reduce the effect of recoil, but that same reduction applies to your ability to move when you actually want to.

File: 1463174215554.png (366KB, 600x726px) Image search: [Google]

366KB, 600x726px

>>31015375
>You will never own a M82A2

Why live?

Use your EVA's air thrusters to push you in the opposite direction as you shoot your weapon.

Or just design a firearm which a gas-based recoil dampening system (i.e. some of the gas exits backwards, in an angle away from your face obviously, or through an extra tube that extends from the gas tube and goes all the way back behind your shooting arm so the gas won't fly at you.)

>>31015337
>level 8
>not jewish space magic sloped composite plating

>not fighting with kinetic barriers and rapiers

>>31015375
>>31015392
Even in .50BMG they'd be fantastic for urban combat. They'll punch through damn near anything that you would need to penetrate and .50BMG is fucking peanuts compared to RPG-7 food.

>>31015008
>So marksmen in the future will have to:
This is where you falsely assume infantry will be fighting outside of their ships.

When Naval warfare became a thing, the issue wasn't "underwater sword fighting techniques".

They learned to board the other ship.