38 replies to this topic

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

You CAN fire a gun in a complete vacuum.



You could fire a gun in space.

BUSTED

[Kalimaster]

We don't really know. Nobody has done it before.

[SouthernRex]

80% of the myths they test they get wrong, or have huge glaring holes in their methods of testing. It terrifies me how many people use MythBusters results as gospel after watching their TV-entertainment hacky scientific methods.

[Heffay]

What was the theory that a gun couldn't be fired in space?

[t Khrist]

Marack Drock, on 28 September 2015 - 08:34 AM, said:

...

Ignore the quote, it was just to get your attention.

So wait.. you're telling me your real name is Chris Hansen? That's awesome.

[Nightshade24]

I heard the problem is not firing a gun in space but reloading it... luckily russia still has a cold war satellite flying around with a modified vacuum safe gun on it because it costs to much to de orbit it...

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Heffay, on 28 September 2015 - 08:12 AM, said:

What was the theory that a gun couldn't be fired in space?

ya

[Mister Blastman]

t Khrist, on 28 September 2015 - 12:19 PM, said:

Ignore the quote, it was just to get your attention.

So wait.. you're telling me your real name is Chris Hansen? That's awesome.

Where did that come from? Am I missing something?

[Sizzles]

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

The the Russians knew this back in the 70s.

[t Khrist]

Mister Blastman, on 30 September 2015 - 07:43 AM, said:

Where did that come from? Am I missing something?

Marack Drock, on 30 September 2015 - 09:53 AM, said:

I think he clicked on my DeviantArt link. I get the Christopher Hansen jokes a lot cause of that News reporter dude with the same name.

^ He's from To Catch A Predator. I'm not trying to make fun of you though, I hope you didn't take it that way. It's just ever since the South Park episode with him in it the name makes me chuckle. Who cares the reason if your name brings a smile to someones face .

[Mister Blastman]

t Khrist, on 30 September 2015 - 12:44 PM, said:

^ He's from To Catch A Predator. I'm not trying to make fun of you though, I hope you didn't take it that way. It's just ever since the South Park episode with him in it the name makes me chuckle. Who cares the reason if your name brings a smile to someones face .

Well right but I didn't see how you inferred that was his name from his post. I missed the link.

[t Khrist]

Marack Drock, on 30 September 2015 - 04:45 PM, said:

No I take no offense. Though I had no idea about the South Park episode which explains the widespread popularity and the name references. My full name is actually Christopher Mark Edward Hansen. Checks are a pain in the ass to write out.

You should definitely check it out. Even if you're not a fan of the show, I think you might get a kick or two out of that episode.

[Hans Von Lohman]

Anybody with high school chemistry passing grade can tell you that guns will work in space.

I believe the major reason people believe that guns can't work in space is that they think the gunpowder won't burn, "Because there is no air, no oxygen for the gunpowder to use to make fire".

Yeah, they know nothing about basic chemistry, or even how explosions work.

The chemicals in gunpowder already have the oxygen needed. All you need is heat to start the chemistry going, usually provided by the primer cap, which is itself an explosion of chemicals set off by mechanical shock.

[redacted]

Edited by Coryphee, 06 October 2015 - 07:35 AM.
unconstructive

[Lily from animove]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 28 September 2015 - 04:37 AM, said:

You CAN fire a gun in a complete vacuum.



You could fire a gun in space.

BUSTED

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

[S3dition]

There is enough air in the cartridge for the propellant to burn. Not efficiently, but enough.

I don't think that was ever a question. Neither is reloading. Why wouldn't you reload in a vacuum? Eject magazine, insert new one, release charging handle.

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.

[SilentScreamer]

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.

Not true.
1) The person ( and gun) will receive equal kinetic energy from the gunpowder as the bullet does. Reference equal and opposite rule.
2) The person( and gun) have many times the mass of the bullet. Energy is equal to mass times the square of velocity.

The person will move much slower than the bullet if both are acted upon in a weightless environment by the gunpowder.

[S3dition]

SilentScreamer, on 06 October 2015 - 01:02 PM, said:

Not true.
1) The person ( and gun) will receive equal kinetic energy from the gunpowder as the bullet does. Reference equal and opposite rule.
2) The person( and gun) have many times the mass of the bullet. Energy is equal to mass times the square of velocity.

The person will move much slower than the bullet if both are acted upon in a weightless environment by the gunpowder.

You know exactly what I meant.

[Lily from animove]

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

There is enough air in the cartridge for the propellant to burn. Not efficiently, but enough.

I don't think that was ever a question. Neither is reloading. Why wouldn't you reload in a vacuum? Eject magazine, insert new one, release charging handle.

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.

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.

[mogs01gt]

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?

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

SouthernRex, on 28 September 2015 - 08:04 AM, said:

80% of the myths they test they get wrong, or have huge glaring holes in their methods of testing. It terrifies me how many people use MythBusters results as gospel after watching their TV-entertainment hacky scientific methods.

its TV -.-

I was making a joke actually rofl