38 replies to this topic

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Sizzles, on 30 September 2015 - 10:39 AM, said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salyut_3

The the Russians knew this back in the 70s.

so hey they got one right lol

Lily from animove, on 06 October 2015 - 09:45 AM, said:

Why should it not? LOL who set up that myth?

CRAPLOADS of ppl here for instance. I see that argument all the time

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

mogs01gt, on 08 October 2015 - 07:33 AM, said:

So WTF was the myth?

There wouldnt be any restraints mechanically or chemistry based. Gravity and oxygen doesnt play a role when firing a bullet out of a casing.Maybe someone thought the slide of a semi-auto wouldnt cycle correctly?

that a bullet wouldnt fire in a vacuum

[mogs01gt]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 08 October 2015 - 04:07 PM, said:

that a bullet wouldnt fire in a vacuum

That is stupid. Or was the question based from the lack of knowledge on how firearm cartridges work...

Edited by mogs01gt, 09 October 2015 - 10:57 AM.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

mogs01gt, on 09 October 2015 - 10:57 AM, said:

That is stupid. Or was the question based from the lack of knowledge on how firearm cartridges work...

It goes around a LOT. I see that a lot here too lol

[S3dition]

Marack Drock, on 06 October 2015 - 04:02 PM, said:

Um no we didn't because what you said there made no sense. You'd barely even budge as a result of shooting the gun. This isn't Gravity (film) or movies. Just cause you shoot something in space doesn't mean you will go flying away crazily.

Lily from animove, on 06 October 2015 - 04:42 PM, said:

you aren't weightless in space.
and you would not be at the speed of the bullet because of mass. And mass is not weight.

Actually, I'm 100% correct. Your new trajectory will begin at the same time as the bullet, ergo you willy fly backward just as fast. Just not at the same velocity.

English yo. It's kool 'n stuff.

[S3dition]

Marack Drock, on 10 October 2015 - 04:50 AM, said:

... um no you will not fly back just as fast. Your mass is so much greater than the bullet, that its reverse velocity (from Newton's laws of motion), will be minimal. You will not fly back just as fast. You will fly back but not the way you are describing.

Also I am an English major yo.

An English major that obviously didn't comprehend what I wrote. Try reading it again. All the way through.

[S3dition]

Marack Drock, on 10 October 2015 - 09:28 AM, said:

Really, well 2 other people are obviously not as smart as your highness. Lily and Buddah both contradicted you.... so either 3 people are idiots, or you are talking out of your ass.

Or just don't read what I post and talk out of yours. This is actually kind of amusing. You're getting so wound up on being right, you won't even read the content for an informed response.

S3dition, on 09 October 2015 - 06:40 PM, said:

Actually, I'm 100% correct. Your new trajectory will begin at the same time as the bullet, ergo you willy fly backward just as fast. Just not at the same velocity.

English yo. It's kool 'n stuff.

Marack Drock, on 10 October 2015 - 04:50 AM, said:

... um no you will not fly back just as fast. Your mass is so much greater than the bullet, that its reverse velocity (from Newton's laws of motion), will be minimal. You will not fly back just as fast. You will fly back but not the way you are describing.

Also I am an English major yo.

Maybe you should switch majors?

Edited by S3dition, 10 October 2015 - 09:41 AM.

[S3dition]

Marack Drock, on 10 October 2015 - 09:45 AM, said:

Velocity is direction + speed. Not speed on its own.

Also I am an A student, so why would I? Seems counter productive to me.

Frankly I am not about to believe you when your 'informed' material is not even sourced. For all anyone knows you could be talking out of your ass.

I am done here.

There are two actions taking place here. 1) The speed at which the objects begin the change of velocity and 2) the actual velocity they obtain.

Each object can begin its change in velocity AT THE SAME SPEED, or JUST AS FAST. This just means they start changing AT THE SAME TIME. Not that they are travelling at the same velocity.

The final velocity is irrelevant to this. Two cars in a drag race do NOT START JUST AS FAST, one will always begin before the other AND they will maintain different velocities.

I said that the bullet and person begin their change in velocity at the same time. You (the uber 1337 English major) and everyone else falsely assumed I meant they would travel at the same velocity.

When I clarified this, you said I was wrong and they would travel at the same velocity.

This is in contradiction to what happens on earth, where the bullet changes velocity and the person does not. Hence, the difficulty of using a firearm in space.


If you read my entire post (all, what, 40 words?, the conversation wouldn't have made it this far.

The I never said anything about velocity. That's you and your cohorts rushing to prove someone wrong. You specifically kept hounding the velocity issue for reasons beyond me. Considering the amount of topics I've seen you post "with complete authority" and yet were dead wrong, maybe it's you who has the problem of talking out of the ass?

Edited by S3dition, 10 October 2015 - 10:02 AM.

[Lily from animove]

S3dition, on 10 October 2015 - 10:01 AM, said:

There are two actions taking place here. 1) The speed at which the objects begin the change of velocity and 2) the actual velocity they obtain.

that first action is its original speed. but speed = velocity.
velocity is distance/time while the change of velocity is acceleration. and acceleration is a distance/time^2.
And you are a bit wrong here because you mess up two different pysical definitions. Lets say both don't move. they have 0 speed at this point. m*a=f

m = mass
a=acceleration
f=fortitude.

so when you change this to a you will see a=f/m and so the body with more mass will have a slower acceleration. And with some more complex formulas my english won't be able to express you can try to see how this transforms into a lesser impulse leading to a slower resulting speed.

The bullets laod of explosion will accelerate both at the same time, the Bullet and the Gun including it's wielder. But since the mass of the bullet is not the mass of the wielder, both receive a different amount of acceleration. And thats why the ultimate speed of both will differ.

Edited by Lily from animove, 12 October 2015 - 05:43 AM.

[S3dition]

Lily from animove, on 12 October 2015 - 05:28 AM, said:

that first action is its original speed. but speed = velocity.
velocity is distance/time while the change of velocity is acceleration. and acceleration is a distance/time^2.
And you are a bit wrong here because you mess up two different pysical definitions. Lets say both don't move. they have 0 speed at this point. m*a=f

m = mass
a=acceleration
f=fortitude.

so when you change this to a you will see a=f/m and so the body with more mass will have a slower acceleration. And with some more complex formulas my english won't be able to express you can try to see how this transforms into a lesser impulse leading to a slower resulting speed.

The bullets laod of explosion will accelerate both at the same time, the Bullet and the Gun including it's wielder. But since the mass of the bullet is not the mass of the wielder, both receive a different amount of acceleration. And thats why the ultimate speed of both will differ.

I can't possibly that difficult to understand.

I said both the bullet and the person will begin their change in velocity at the same exact moment (just as fast). I said nothing about the actual velocity they would be moving at. You people are trying to prove a point that I never even tried to make. It's like I said the sky is blue and you're lecturing me on wind speed, because clearly the wind is not blue.

What the hell.

[Lily from animove]

S3dition, on 12 October 2015 - 11:47 AM, said:

I said both the bullet and the person will begin their change in velocity at the same exact moment (just as fast). I said nothing about the actual velocity they would be moving at.

read your own post again

S3dition, on 09 October 2015 - 06:40 PM, said:

Actually, I'm 100% correct. Your new trajectory will begin at the same time as the bullet, ergo you willy fly backward just as fast. Just not at the same velocity.

just as fast but not same velocity.

with velocity being speed (what people told you) you contradicted yourself in yur own post here, thats also what people told you, and you just kept defending your words. Now you even say you never said this? You probaly have issues memorising what you posted yourself or you have some schizophrenia and one of your personalities doesn't know what the other writes.

Edited by Lily from animove, 13 October 2015 - 03:46 AM.

[Ano]

S3dition, on 06 October 2015 - 12:24 PM, said:

I think it's always been "firing a gun in outer space", which is not an issue of vacuum but weightlessness. You're going to be sent flying just as fast as the bullet.

S3dition, on 12 October 2015 - 11:47 AM, said:

I said both the bullet and the person will begin their change in velocity at the same exact moment (just as fast). I said nothing about the actual velocity they would be moving at. ...

Heh. Either a fairly weak (but successful) trolling attempt, or an unnecessarily vociferous defence of a simple and easily-acknowledged mistake, whether of sentence construction or of physics.

The word "fast" was a reasonable word for the purpose, given that it is used both to indicate "speed" (the common parlance version to do with rapid movement) and "quickly" i.e. within a short period of time.

For all its success, I don't think it's an especially good troll: I'd say "sent flying" implies a speed-related meaning for "just as fast" in this context. Moreover, if you were "sent flying" slowly (by which I mean at low speed) by firing a gun then it would be simple to manage/correct after the fact.

[Tesunie]

Guns can fire underwater too (as in, the gun is under the water). The shells are sealed against the bullet, and contain all the energy needed to propel the bullet in just about any environment. As long as the gun power inside the casing does not get contaminated (read as wet or become inactive somehow), when the firing pin is hit and sparks (inside the casing), then it will sill ignite and the resulting "explosion" will still propel the bullet with the stored kinetic energy.


Don't even know why this needed to be tested. I thought it was already a known science?

[Captain Carrot Ironfoundersson]

Hi I see no one has said about the temputre in space which has a huge range from 270 kelvin to 300 degrees Celsius this would melt the gun to freezeing it?

[S3dition]

william ryalls, on 13 October 2015 - 10:28 AM, said:

Hi I see no one has said about the temputre in space which has a huge range from 270 kelvin to 300 degrees Celsius this would melt the gun to freezeing it?

It was more about the weapon's ability to fire in the vacuum as opposed to actually firing in space. Any moisture (at near absolute zero, the lubricating oil would freeze) would seizing the bolt and charging handle/slide/cylinder/whatever. It could potentially shatter the barrel as well (see steel dipped in liquid nitrogen then slammed on something hard).

Heat though - depends. Composite materials might have a problem, but many firearms are made of machined steel and aluminum.

I couldn't say what the temperature threshold is for all of those materials are off hand. Casting temperatures for hardened steel tend to be very high though.

[SpiderMom]

Huh? DOnt know if this has already been brought up because im not reading the entire thread im about to fall aslepp. But the problem with fiering a gun in outer space isnt the vacume. The problem is there is no gravity/ The gun or shooting would be pusjed backward with the same force that the projectile is pushed forward and the two would fly off in opposite directions in space with nothing to stop them

[Tesunie]

SpiderMom, on 14 October 2015 - 03:15 AM, said:

Huh? DOnt know if this has already been brought up because im not reading the entire thread im about to fall aslepp. But the problem with fiering a gun in outer space isnt the vacume. The problem is there is no gravity/ The gun or shooting would be pusjed backward with the same force that the projectile is pushed forward and the two would fly off in opposite directions in space with nothing to stop them

You are forgetting about mass. Yes, the gun's firing will result in some pushing of the shooter, but the person holding the gun and the bullet have different masses. The bullet would still scream out of the gun quickly, and the person would probably spin out of control unless anchored to something much larger.

I'd be more worried about temperature of the gun, considering the force of the propellants and resulting explosion to make the bullet move. However, that would be dependent on where in space one is at a given time.

[S3dition]

SpiderMom, on 14 October 2015 - 03:15 AM, said:

Huh? DOnt know if this has already been brought up because im not reading the entire thread im about to fall aslepp. But the problem with fiering a gun in outer space isnt the vacume. The problem is there is no gravity/ The gun or shooting would be pusjed backward with the same force that the projectile is pushed forward and the two would fly off in opposite directions in space with nothing to stop them

The cycle begins anew

[Lily from animove]

S3dition, on 13 October 2015 - 10:38 AM, said:

It was more about the weapon's ability to fire in the vacuum as opposed to actually firing in space. Any moisture (at near absolute zero, the lubricating oil would freeze) would seizing the bolt and charging handle/slide/cylinder/whatever. It could potentially shatter the barrel as well (see steel dipped in liquid nitrogen then slammed on something hard).

Heat though - depends. Composite materials might have a problem, but many firearms are made of machined steel and aluminum.

I couldn't say what the temperature threshold is for all of those materials are off hand. Casting temperatures for hardened steel tend to be very high though.

Are you starting to troll now?
Space is empty, at least nearly, so when you put a gun into space it does not instantly freeze, because there is no valid medium transporting the energy, that creates the guns temperature, away from it. Thats why you as a human won't freeze when popping out ins space naked. There is only a very small kind of electomagnetically caused wamrht that the gun loses. But its very low.

SpiderMom, on 14 October 2015 - 03:15 AM, said:

Huh? DOnt know if this has already been brought up because im not reading the entire thread im about to fall aslepp. But the problem with fiering a gun in outer space isnt the vacume. The problem is there is no gravity/ The gun or shooting would be pusjed backward with the same force that the projectile is pushed forward and the two would fly off in opposite directions in space with nothing to stop them

There is garvity, any mass has gravity, the bullet, the gun, the human. it's just very small, but the differenc beetween the bullet and the human is very big. Think about it, a planet is juats another body in space with another amount of mass.

You should go and read something about gravity.