War on the Moon

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Godofgamblers 10/30/2009 11:27:48 PM

I'm not sure about guns, Parm, don't they require oxygen? I suppose you could make catridges with oxygen in them but then again, wouldn't the force of the shot fling you off the moon? I'm not sure though because I have seen films where they are shooting underwater..... But that's impossible too, right?

I remember a bond film (Moonraker?) Where the US was prepared for such a contingency and had units of space marines! I wonder if there is actually such a contingency plan....

Quote Reply

Godofgamblers 10/30/2009 11:29:11 PM

What if alien forces from Pluto occupied the moon.... would we be able to dislodge them?

Why dislodge them now since we do not profit by the moon?

Let see if France can not trade with them, benefit of their technology, use them against its earth rivals (including USA)...and sell them some Rafale

hahaha....Just what Pluto needs!

Quote Reply

WarNerd 10/31/2009 5:56:32 AM

I'm not sure about guns, Parm, don't they require oxygen? I suppose you could make cartridges with oxygen in them but then again, wouldn't the force of the shot fling you off the moon? I'm not sure though because I have seen films where they are shooting underwater..... But that's impossible too, right?

The propellant used in modern cartridges contains all the oxygen it needs. In fact, the oxygen in the atmosphere can not even come in contact with the propellant until the bullet leaves the barrel.

You can fire a gun underwater, but the increased density and drag reduces the effective range to a few feet at most. Most guns are best used as a 'bang-stick', ram the muzzle into the target, pull the trigger, and pray it does not blow up in your face because the barrel is full of water. There are special bullets being worked on that 'supercavitate' and have a longer range, but they appear too have to be fired from air into water in order to achieve enough velocity to create the initial cavity. Real underwater guns (not the make believe ones in the movies) are built special for the job, fire a long heavy projectile at very low velocities (i.e. a spear or bolt) from a short barrel (you want the projectile to protrude from and seal the end of the barrel to exclude water from entering) and are either single shot or 'pepperbox' designs.

The other alternative is to use a rocket propelled projectile, several of which were designed based on the gyrojet. Theoretically these can achieve any range by increasing the amount of propellant and burn time, but accuracy and visibility generally limit the useful range to 50 feet (16m) or less.

Oh, and if you really want to take out an underwater target bigger than a modest sized fish you will probably need to have either an explosive or poisoned tip.

Quote Reply

WarNerd 10/31/2009 6:52:36 AM

Guns should work in space, providing they're modern guns. (Invading the moon with muskets is out then.) They'll work alot better than on earth in fact, as without air resistance a bullet will go about 5 times faster and have 25 times the kinetic energy.

I am not sure where the 5x velocity myth started, but it is simply false. Actual increase in velocity will be at most a few percent due to the fact that you do not have to push the air out of the barrel ahead of the bullet. Bullet velocity, and therefore terminal effects, will not decrease with range however and muzzle drop will ~1/6th due to the lower gravity.

Also, avoid any weapons with muzzle velocities between 1.6 km/sec and 2.4 km/sec (5250 ft/sec and 7875 ft/sec) because any miss can go into orbit. Blue on blue casualties are bad, but you would never hear the end of it if you got hit by your own bullet 4+ weeks later.

Quote Reply

ambush 10/31/2009 9:44:26 AM

While most conventional firearms might function on the moon I think recoil would be problem. Thanks to Newton and low gravity certain caliber weapons would have the effect of sending their user in the opposite direction and artillery would have to be firmly anchored.

Quote Reply

smitty237 11/2/2009 12:48:07 AM

The question I would have about using modern firearms in a no gravity or low gravity environment would be the reliabitlity of the weapons, i.e., jamming or failures to feed. Since most gas and recoil operated firearms rely upon springs to operate the bolt, would low or zero gravity affect this? What about magazine springs? Would low gravity cause the weapons to fire at a higher than normal rate of fire, and wouldn't this cause the weapon to jam? If this were the case then maybe bolt action rifles, especially higher capacity ones like the Enfield would be the way to go.

Just a thought.........

Quote Reply

stbretnco 11/2/2009 12:57:38 AM

As far as weapons go, the extremes of heat and cold are going to have a far more detrimental effect on the weapons than gravity.

The biggest problem remains......

We're at the bottom of a very deep (1G) gravity well. The moon is at the top of that well. It makes it very easy for the occupying forces on the moon to toss rocks into earth's gravity well and pound the heck out of Earth, and very, very difficult to get troops and materiel u pto the moon.

As far as the moon's worth as a base, if there's water there, then you have most of what you need for interplanetary flight, and you don't need to bring your own propellants, you can manufacture them in situ. You don't need to bring large amounts of oxygen, you can make it.

Frankly, if I had the wherewithal to occupy the moon, I'd do so, but no until first stopping off in the asteroid belt to pick up an asteroid or two to use for nickel and Iron, elements which the moon is lacking.

Quote Reply

Godofgamblers 11/2/2009 2:27:20 AM

As far as weapons go, the extremes of heat and cold are going to have a far more detrimental effect on the weapons than gravity.

The biggest problem remains......

The situation is all the more urgent then to dislodge them, given the strategic situation that you describe. I assume a nuke fired at the moon could be counter prodcutive. if guns are too dangerous to use due to temperature extremes and recoil, would astro-soldiers or (cosmo-commandos?) be reduced to using katanas to attack the plutonions? Sci fi always imagines high tech battles between two high tech foes but a battle between two low tech enemies would be quite gruesome in space.

The problem of recoil could perhaps be solved by fixing the guns in position before firing them, achoring them somehow. I can't quite imagine this either though.... Is the development of lasrers at a level where they could be used for combat? i.e. lethal and portable?

Quote Reply

Godofgamblers 11/2/2009 2:29:17 AM

Just a thought.........

No idea..... this is a stupid question, but would a crossbow work? a bow and arrow? perhaps low tech is the way to go...

Quote Reply

stbretnco 11/2/2009 2:36:38 AM

Assuming that the opposition beathes air of some sort and that they need SOME pressure to survive, you wouldn't really need a heavy duty weapon to kill them.

All you'd need is a low recoil weapon that spat out tons of bullets (remembering to keep the bullet below escape velocity, for reasons mentioned above) and breach their enviro suits. A kill is a kill, whether you hit their bodies to do actual damage or not. If you disable their suits, they are rendered useless.

A Nuke wouldn't neccesarily be counterproductive, could actually be quite useful, but you better get some engineers working quickly on something to toss it up there. Shock effects on any underground works would wreak havoc.

WIth current tech, best bet would actually be to use a nuke or 30, then follow up with ground troops in suits to mop up, but it's almost certainly a suicide mission unless planned out well in advance.

Post dislodging them, a permanent outpost would be neccesary, as we don't yet have the tech to chase them around the Solar system. A reaction drive to launch with ion drive for continuous boost would be ideal, but we don't have that yet.

Quote Reply

PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT