Recoil is my first thought. Like cartoon characters trying to use a fire hoseWhat does happen if you fire a gun in space or on the Moon?
Has anyone experimented with this OTL?
Recoil is my first thought. Like cartoon characters trying to use a fire hoseWhat does happen if you fire a gun in space or on the Moon?
Has anyone experimented with this OTL?
What does happen if you fire a gun in space or on the Moon?
Has anyone experimented with this OTL?
First, the bullets would face no air resistance, and would arc less due to lower gravity. Second, if you’re not on a solid surface (like the moon), recoil is going to be an issue, like @Expat just said. Treat any gun as an equally powerful rocket thruster.
Machine Gun Jetpack
what-if.xkcd.com
I think the problem with the characters is that they’re trying to dea with so many characters and it feels sort of crowded and limited in a way. The same thing happened with last few seasons of Orange is the New Black.
This occurred to me back during season 1, in particular when thinking of Danielle. First black astronaut from either country on the Moon--not a peep about that. That should have been at least as important given the racial justice social upheavals of the 1960s as Mollie Cobb being the first American woman. But nope.Agreed. I was thinking the other day that ensemble shows are really hindered by the modern tendency to do <10 episode seasons. No time to develop characters to the extent they need. If the seasons were longer, characters could get shows more focused on them.
This occurred to me back during season 1, in particular when thinking of Danielle. First black astronaut from either country on the Moon--not a peep about that. That should have been at least as important given the racial justice social upheavals of the 1960s as Mollie Cobb being the first American woman. But nope.
In Ye Olde Days, shows with 26 episodes per season might have produced more clunkers, but there was room to breathe. From a literary perspective, I've read lots of novels with oversized casts of viewpoint characters--and the books are door-stoppers as a consequence. That's the length you need to do them justice. And it's not like Moore's a stranger to that--DS9 gave its large main cast, and the recurring supporting cast, room to grow that way.
What drives this short-season tendency? Is it budget? The network's desire to get more different shows onto its streaming service? One would think that Apple TV+, since it's trying to force its way into a market already saturated with streaming services, would want to try something different--a show that takes the whole year to drop, so that people have a reason to pay $5 per month every month rather than cancelling their subscriptions when the 10 episodes they care about are done.
There are a number of trends driving this, with money the general trend behind most of them.This occurred to me back during season 1, in particular when thinking of Danielle. First black astronaut from either country on the Moon--not a peep about that. That should have been at least as important given the racial justice social upheavals of the 1960s as Mollie Cobb being the first American woman. But nope.
In Ye Olde Days, shows with 26 episodes per season might have produced more clunkers, but there was room to breathe. From a literary perspective, I've read lots of novels with oversized casts of viewpoint characters--and the books are door-stoppers as a consequence. That's the length you need to do them justice. And it's not like Moore's a stranger to that--DS9 gave its large main cast, and the recurring supporting cast, room to grow that way.
What drives this short-season tendency? Is it budget? The network's desire to get more different shows onto its streaming service? One would think that Apple TV+, since it's trying to force its way into a market already saturated with streaming services, would want to try something different--a show that takes the whole year to drop, so that people have a reason to pay $5 per month every month rather than cancelling their subscriptions when the 10 episodes they care about are done.
Yes, though on a vehicle-scale rather than a personal-scale weapon. The "difficulty" is that there's been no real reason to arm astronauts IOTL, since, well, there aren't any situations where they might have to shoot at other astronauts/cosmonauts. At most you'll see survival weapons on Russian vehicles, but those are for fighting bears and wolves, not people, and aren't supposed to be used in space.What does happen if you fire a gun in space or on the Moon?
Has anyone experimented with this OTL?
Or 10 episodes fewer.What I'd like to know about modern 'TV' is why 10 episodes rather than say 12 which I'd have thought would give a little more room withour over staying the welcome. Picard for example really should have been 1 or 2 shows longer to pace out the ending better.
This is less set. You do get shows with a few more here or there. Especially if it's a proven hit. You also get shows with a lot less, especially if you look at the production credits and there's like 20 funding sources.What I'd like to know about modern 'TV' is why 10 episodes rather than say 12 which I'd have thought would give a little more room withour over staying the welcome. Picard for example really should have been 1 or 2 shows longer to pace out the ending better.
I was wondering if there were maybe, um, “better” weapons than an m16 to take to the Moon. Considering how many things can kill you in space, plus supply constraints, training, and maybe even the fore-shortened spaces (less range needed), are there simpler alternatives? Is this a case of, “the Americans spent millions developing an m16 you could fire in space; the Russians spent $200 to put an air canister on a Red Rider.”
Probably not that specifically, but....big ol taser? Rock-thrower?
What could they do for sighting? Is there enough atmosphere on the moon for a laser? Probably not?An M16 would be very functional as far as firearms go on the moon. With white furniture to stop it melting in the direct sun of course. It has a spring loaded dust cover to prevent ingress of moon dust as much as possible. Combat ranges on the moon could possibly be actually longer than on earth where an abundance of cover such as buildings and trees, and the ability to quickly create entrenchments makes it easier for soldiers to conceal themselves. ON the moon the rigidity of the space suits means that most EVA combatants would have to fight from a standing position, and apart from craters and boulders there is not much to obstruct liens of sight. The lack of air resistance and lower gravity means that the weapons would have far higher effective ranges as well. Though using the standard sighting systems would likely be difficult with he bulky bubble helmets.
You don't need an atmosphere for a laser to function; in fact, not having an atmosphere means that it will work better since there is little possibility of dust, fog, or other atmospheric contaminants scattering the laser light.What could they do for sighting? Is there enough atmosphere on the moon for a laser? Probably not?
A laser would be one option, the likely one given the technology of the 80s. Later they would possibly try something with a camera gunsight linked to a HUD system inside the helmet.What could they do for sighting? Is there enough atmosphere on the moon for a laser? Probably not?
Heh, almost want to say mount one and go paint some stones at set ranges.