PDA

View Full Version : Sniper shot on the moon


jamespres2001
09-24-2012, 5:58 PM
So how would the bullet react? 1/6 gravity, no air= no wind. Would it travel farther and drop less. I truly don't know.

Merc1138
09-24-2012, 6:02 PM
You answered your own question. As long as you had enough air in the cartridge for the powder to burn(not impossible to do, heck there are guns made specifically to use underwater with sealed ammo). Gravity makes the bullet drop, less gravity = less drop. Less air resistance = less drag to slow the bullet down. Recoil might be a ***** though.

edit: Plus considering the escape velocity of the moon is only 2.4km/s(7,800fps) compared to 11.2km/s on earth, you'd already be pushing halfway to escaping orbit of the moon with some rounds.

monk
09-24-2012, 6:02 PM
Well, being that there is no oxygen in space, I'd say it wouldn't even go bang. :D

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=617

AK all day
09-24-2012, 6:05 PM
Only one way to find out.....

AeroEngi
09-24-2012, 6:07 PM
I'm not too sure about this but if gun powder includes oxidizer then it doesn't matter if it's in space. It'll still go bang. Kinda like rocket propellants. They have their own oxidizer and that's how they work in space.

tiechshlime
09-24-2012, 6:08 PM
The nitrate in gun powder is an oxidizer= no oxygen needed for burn

missiondude
09-24-2012, 6:08 PM
Well, being that there is no oxygen in space, I'd say it wouldn't even go bang. :D

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=617

Gunpowder does not get the oxygen it needs to burn from the atmosphere. It would go bang...

jingerale
09-24-2012, 6:08 PM
didn't you guys see Firefly........

Sonic_mike
09-24-2012, 6:09 PM
lets send Neil to space and tell him that our moon has some hot trim.

Merc1138
09-24-2012, 6:09 PM
I'm not too sure about this but if gun powder includes oxidizer then it doesn't matter if it's in space. It'll still go bang. Kinda like rocket propellants. They have their own oxidizer and that's how they work in space.

Yeah, definitely possible.

http://world.guns.ru/handguns/hg/rus/spp-1m-underwater-e.html

Uses rounds sealed with air and powder, no reason it couldn't be done in a vacuum.

xibunkrlilkidsx
09-24-2012, 6:10 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nudelman-Rikhter_NR-23

russians believed a gun could fire in space so they put it on their space stations, wouldnt be suprised if we had some on ours.


I think that we would be seeing mile shots with 223.

troysland
09-24-2012, 6:15 PM
http://scienceblogs.com/builtonfacts/wp-content/blogs.dir/477/files/2012/04/i-02aed4facee28fde7a6ecf199f8ee5dc-3.jpg

Merc1138
09-24-2012, 6:25 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nudelman-Rikhter_NR-23

russians believed a gun could fire in space so they put it on their space stations, wouldnt be suprised if we had some on ours.


I think that we would be seeing mile shots with 223.

Well, ignoring air resistance, and assuming the surface is flat(I think a curve would actually make it go further), a projectile launched at 1 degree using the moon's gravity of 1.62m/s^2, traveling at 2700fps would go 9 miles. Lobbing it at a 5 degree angle gets you 45 miles.

http://www.calctool.org/CALC/phys/newtonian/projectile

edit: I'm sure someone is freaking out because the weight of the projectile isn't mentioned, technically it doesn't matter because the math is done pretending it's a newtonian projectile in a vacuum. Even counting the thin atmosphere( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_the_Moon ), the calculator would be more correct for a projectile on the moon that it would be on Earth.

Vlad 11
09-24-2012, 8:01 PM
Well, being that there is no oxygen in space, I'd say it wouldn't even go bang. :D

It'll still go bang.

It would go bang...

Even if it goes 'bang', it will not really be going 'bang'...no sound in space.
No gas molecules present to propagate the sound waves

JohnFLand
09-24-2012, 9:05 PM
Explosive bolts are definitely known to work on the Moon (see below); so will M2 Ball ammo.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/apollo-spacecraft6.htm

kaboom
09-24-2012, 9:09 PM
Gunpowder has it's oxygen built in. Air is not required. That is pretty much what makes an explosive explode.

sigstroker
09-24-2012, 9:28 PM
Well, ignoring air resistance, and assuming the surface is flat(I think a curve would actually make it go further), a projectile launched at 1 degree using the moon's gravity of 1.62m/s^2, traveling at 2700fps would go 9 miles. Lobbing it at a 5 degree angle gets you 45 miles.

http://www.calctool.org/CALC/phys/newtonian/projectile

edit: I'm sure someone is freaking out because the weight of the projectile isn't mentioned, technically it doesn't matter because the math is done pretending it's a newtonian projectile in a vacuum. Even counting the thin atmosphere( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_the_Moon ), the calculator would be more correct for a projectile on the moon that it would be on Earth.

It doesn't matter how much it weighs. Everything drops at the same rate in a vacuum.

captbilly
09-24-2012, 9:36 PM
So how would the bullet react? 1/6 gravity, no air= no wind. Would it travel farther and drop less. I truly don't know.

The cartridge would fire just fine (the reaction require no oxygen from outside the cartridge). The drag on the bullet would be essentially zero, due to the extremely low pressure of the lunar atmosphere, so the bullet would lose no velocity with distance. (the velocity at any range would be the same as muzzle velocity) Since there is no atmosphere there is also no wind so no wind doping would be required for the extremely long range shots that would be possible. Due to the much lower mass of the moon the acceleration due to gravity on the moon would be 1/6th that on earth. Bullet drop would therefore be much much less on the moon than on earth.

If I remember correctly, I once calculated that some very high speed cartridges might actually have sufficient velocity to reach orbital velocity on the moon. If I am correct about this it would mean that you could hold the rifle level, fire a shot, and have the bullet go all the way around the moon and hit you in the back of the head at nearly the same velocity as when it left the muzzle (you would have to aim pretty darn carefully, and you would have to be on top of the highest mountain anywhere in the orbit of the bullet).

Merc1138
09-24-2012, 10:06 PM
It doesn't matter how much it weighs. Everything drops at the same rate in a vacuum.

That's what I said. You quoted me stating that the weight wouldn't matter because it's in a vacuum(technically it's not, but for practical purposes it's close enough). Thanks for the redundancy?

Sheepdog1968
09-24-2012, 10:34 PM
Go read physics of baseball. They talk about how thinner air in Colorado impacts the ball. Can draw some parallels from that. Even if not, it makes for a good read.

AleksandreCz
09-24-2012, 11:19 PM
I would worry about the Escape velocity without air resistance and the smaller gravitational forse slowing the the bullet down

Merc1138
09-25-2012, 12:01 AM
I would worry about the Escape velocity without air resistance and the smaller gravitational forse slowing the the bullet down

Unless you've got something going faster than 7,800 feet per second(that's the escape velocity on the moon), it's not an issue. Even then, it wouldn't be any different than the various other bits of space debris traveling much faster. Heck, the international space station orbits Earth at around 27,000 km/h, or 88582677 ft per hour, or around 24,500 feet per second(the voyager probes are both moving at over 55,000 km/h). Once you're looking at speeds of objects in space, you have to take the speed of one object compared to another for it to really matter. It's not like the bullet will speed up over time on it's own.

Now one of those gyrojet rocket guns could be a different story. They apparently top off at 1250fps, in Earth's atmosphere. That would be a very different story on the moon depending on it's burn time.

JoeJinKY
09-25-2012, 12:16 AM
Given that every action has an equal and opposite reaction, if you fired a weapon, I think you would move backward a fair distance because you weigh less, but the power of the shot is the same. Also, I believe the bullet traveling at the speed of rifle rounds would leave the moon's orbit and travel out into space. Not only is the gravity less, its "pull" on objects above its surface is less.

I just have to wonder. The moon has no fluid to absorb the shock. It is basically a rock with no air, and no trees or water, and nothing else to react to the force placed upon it by firing a gun. So if you anchored down a .50 Cal., would you cause the moon to start rotating in the opposite direction of the round fired? Would you change it's orbit?

Did the lunar landing missions screw up the moon's orbit, which would be a plausible cause for the increase in tornadoes, tidal waves and seismic activity? Did we sign our own death warrant by placing several powerful rockets onto the moon, and then firing them off when we leave? Did WE screw up the orbit of the moon?

AleksandreCz
09-25-2012, 12:23 AM
Unless you've got something going faster than 7,800 feet per second(that's the escape velocity on the moon), it's not an issue. Even then, it wouldn't be any different than the various other bits of space debris traveling much faster. Heck, the international space station orbits Earth at around 27,000 km/h, or 88582677 ft per hour, or around 24,500 feet per second(the voyager probes are both moving at over 55,000 km/h). Once you're looking at speeds of objects in space, you have to take the speed of one object compared to another for it to really matter. It's not like the bullet will speed up over time on it's own.

Now one of those gyrojet rocket guns could be a different story. They apparently top off at 1250fps, in Earth's atmosphere. That would be a very different story on the moon depending on it's burn time.

I thought about that but doing the math of the speed of Bullets fired on the moon as opposed to earth seemed like fun mental exersise for tomorow morning
My coment was not in reference of danger Because there are plenty of object both man made and not around earth but in regards to actualy the posibility of making the long range shots on the moon could be hard if your bullets keep escaping the moons gravity ;)

Merc1138
09-25-2012, 12:24 AM
Given that every action has an equal and opposite reaction, if you fired a weapon, I think you would move backward a fair distance because you weigh less, but the power of the shot is the same. Also, I believe the bullet traveling at the speed of rifle rounds would leave the moon's orbit and travel out into space. Not only is the gravity less, its "pull" on objects above its surface is less.

I just have to wonder. The moon has no fluid to absorb the shock. It is basically a rock with no air, and no trees or water, and nothing else to react to the force placed upon it by firing a gun. So if you anchored down a .50 Cal., would you cause the moon to start rotating in the opposite direction of the round fired? Would you change it's orbit?

Did the lunar landing missions screw up the moon's orbit, which would be a plausible cause for the increase in tornadoes, tidal waves and seismic activity? Did we sign our own death warrant by placing several powerful rockets onto the moon, and then firing them off when we leave? Did WE screw up the orbit of the moon?

I've given the escape velocity for the moon a few times in this thread now. 7,800 feet per second.

As far as changing the orbit, position, or rotation of the moon simply by anchoring a .50bmg, I suggest you look up some things like momentum and inertia. Having water and trees on the moon wouldn't change anything.

To say that the moon's gravity is less, and that it also has less pull on an object is redundant(compared to Earth?). You've said the same thing in two different ways.

I can't tell if your post is a bad attempt at comedy, or you really paid that little attention during science classes in school.


I thought about that but doing the math of the speed of Bullets fired on the moon as opposed to earth seemed like fun mental exersise for tomorow morning
My coment was not in reference of danger Because there are plenty of object both man made and not around earth but in regards to actualy the posibility of making the long range shots on the moon could be hard if your bullets keep escaping the moons gravity ;)

I already did the math for you :p It's not hard since the escape velocity of an object on the moon is already known http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_velocity

Unless you think the round might travel faster simply by being fired on the moon, it's probably the opposite if we're talking about a gun being held by a human who would be affected by recoil.

AleksandreCz
09-25-2012, 12:32 AM
I am well aware of the escape velosity of the moon (closer to 7900 fps but I am not the to knit pick as far as I am concerned Pi is 3.14) I am talking about velosity of the bullets fired on the moon

maitime
09-25-2012, 12:37 AM
Given that every action has an equal and opposite reaction, if you fired a weapon, I think you would move backward a fair distance because you weigh less, but the power of the shot is the same. Also, I believe the bullet traveling at the speed of rifle rounds would leave the moon's orbit and travel out into space. Not only is the gravity less, its "pull" on objects above its surface is less.

I just have to wonder. The moon has no fluid to absorb the shock. It is basically a rock with no air, and no trees or water, and nothing else to react to the force placed upon it by firing a gun. So if you anchored down a .50 Cal., would you cause the moon to start rotating in the opposite direction of the round fired? Would you change it's orbit?

Did the lunar landing missions screw up the moon's orbit, which would be a plausible cause for the increase in tornadoes, tidal waves and seismic activity? Did we sign our own death warrant by placing several powerful rockets onto the moon, and then firing them off when we leave? Did WE screw up the orbit of the moon?

I think the hundreds of thousands of giant rocks that the moon catches may have more impact than some rockets. Im not astronomy or physics major though.

I've given the escape velocity for the moon a few times in this thread now. 7,800 feet per second.

As far as changing the orbit, position, or rotation of the moon simply by anchoring a .50bmg, I suggest you look up some things like momentum and inertia. Having water and trees on the moon wouldn't change anything.

To say that the moon's gravity is less, and that it also has less pull on an object is redundant(compared to Earth?). You've said the same thing in two different ways.

I can't tell if your post is a bad attempt at comedy, or you really paid that little attention during science classes in school.



I didnt pay much attention in school and i hated math and science while i was in, but i still have to believe that his post was a bad attempt at comedy. or... natural selection has failed.

proclone1
09-25-2012, 6:14 AM
This is how they filmed the rotunda shooting scene w Angelina joli in the movie Wanted. On set, on the moon. 12 stunt doubles were sacrificed so they had to make sure Angelina's aim was stellar.

vliberatore
09-25-2012, 6:44 AM
Even if it goes 'bang', it will not really be going 'bang'...no sound in space.
No gas molecules present to propagate the sound waves

If you really want to get technical, there are gas particles in space, but they are too spread out to be affected by sound waves

:p

Lostsheep
09-25-2012, 6:59 AM
Given that every action has an equal and opposite reaction, if you fired a weapon, I think you would move backward a fair distance because you weigh less, but the power of the shot is the same. Also, I believe the bullet traveling at the speed of rifle rounds would leave the moon's orbit and travel out into space. Not only is the gravity less, its "pull" on objects above its surface is less.

I just have to wonder. The moon has no fluid to absorb the shock. It is basically a rock with no air, and no trees or water, and nothing else to react to the force placed upon it by firing a gun. So if you anchored down a .50 Cal., would you cause the moon to start rotating in the opposite direction of the round fired? Would you change it's orbit?

Did the lunar landing missions screw up the moon's orbit, which would be a plausible cause for the increase in tornadoes, tidal waves and seismic activity? Did we sign our own death warrant by placing several powerful rockets onto the moon, and then firing them off when we leave? Did WE screw up the orbit of the moon?



Um no.

Newtons second law is F=ma or more importantly a=F/m. The m does not stand for weight, it stands for mass. Your weight changes depending on where you are, your mass does not.

For further reading, look up the difference between inertial mass gravitational mass. As it turns out the ratio of these two is unity but they are still different things. Inertial mass comes from Newtons 2nd law and gravitational mass comes from Newtons universal gravitation.



Did we screw up the moons orbit? No. Did we change it by adding mass that would otherwise not be there? Yes. The change is imperceptibly small. This is similar to when we use a planet for a gravitational assist flyby. Momentum must be conserved and thus when the momentum of a (relatively) tiny spacecraft is increased the momentum of the planet must be correspondingly decreased. Take for example the Jupiter flyby of New Horizons, the relative changes in momentum will be equivalent to the the ratio of their masses: 477kg / 1.89x10^29 = 2.52x10^25. That is 25 orders of magnitude.

russ69
09-25-2012, 7:03 AM
I am well aware of the escape velosity of the moon (closer to 7900 fps but I am not the to knit pick as far as I am concerned Pi is 3.14) I am talking about velosity of the bullets fired on the moon

Muzzle velocity will be the same (plus a small un-measurable increase due to no air in the barrel slowing the bullet down).

TwinStick
09-25-2012, 8:18 AM
Silly OP, you and I both know the only Snipers on the moon are trained sharks with lasers on the freakin' heads.

starsnuffer
09-25-2012, 8:30 AM
Russian Almaz space/reconnisance stations had a 23mm Nudelman rapid-fire cannon mounted on the forward belly of the station. Saylut-3 tested this remotely (unmanned) against a satellite and it worked fine. These were basically bomber tailguns. No oxygen tank needed.

Just FYI.

-W

Fellblade
09-25-2012, 9:01 AM
This youtube video talks about shooting a bullet on the moon around the 1:25 mark.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYf6av21x5c

connorr931
09-25-2012, 9:28 AM
I know this sounds weird but if you shot a bullet on the moon and stood where you shot for a while it would come back and hit you in the head (or the exact spot that it left the barrel. This would only be possible of course if the bullet didn't come into contact with an elevation change on its way and it didn't loose to much velocity with I don't think would be a problem.

stix213
09-25-2012, 9:31 AM
It would drop at 1/6 the rate due to gravity and would face no air resistence so at 5 miles you'd still have muzzle velocity if fired perpendicular to the ground. Would be pretty sick lol No more .223 haters on the moon ;)

AeroEngi
09-25-2012, 8:26 PM
I would worry about the Escape velocity without air resistance and the smaller gravitational forse slowing the the bullet down

With no atmosphere on the moon, the bullet would not slow down assuming you fire the bullet perfectly horizontal to the moon's surface. Theoretically, it will hit the moon's surface at it's muzzle velocity. Assuming you fire the bullet perfectly horizontal, gravity will only make the bullet drop.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

TKM
09-25-2012, 8:41 PM
I know this sounds weird but if you shot a bullet on the moon and stood where you shot for a while it would come back and hit you in the head (or the exact spot that it left the barrel. This would only be possible of course if the bullet didn't come into contact with an elevation change on its way and it didn't loose to much velocity with I don't think would be a problem.

There is a subtle difference between weird and stupid.

sigstroker
09-25-2012, 11:01 PM
Watch the moon video where the guy drops a golf ball so he can hit it. It takes a couple seconds at most to hit the ground from 5 feet up. The bullet would hit the ground in the same amount of time. At 3200 fps it would probably go a little over a mile before hitting the ground if the rifle was fired parallel to the ground.

Nobody would get hit in the back of the head.

SoCalXD
09-26-2012, 12:12 AM
Heck, you guys had me at "no wind doping"! When to we open the range? It should be easier to police our brass with that lower gravity too! We will have to enforce a no spitting rule, but we can fart all we want! :rofl2:

BTW: The Ft-lbs energy of the 556 will still suck on the moon, compared to the 308! ;)

Merc1138
09-26-2012, 1:35 AM
Watch the moon video where the guy drops a golf ball so he can hit it. It takes a couple seconds at most to hit the ground from 5 feet up. The bullet would hit the ground in the same amount of time. At 3200 fps it would probably go a little over a mile before hitting the ground if the rifle was fired parallel to the ground.

Nobody would get hit in the back of the head.

Well, if you were completely parallel, it wouldn't go a mile. However, .1 degree of elevation and you end up with .9 miles, a full degree of elevation and it ends up being 9 miles. At the velocities of 5.56, you couldn't get a shot around the moon even if you lobbed it like a mortar at a 30 degree angle(but it would still go a couple hundred miles, the moon is 6784 miles in circumfrence)

Heck, you guys had me at "no wind doping"! When to we open the range? It should be easier to police our brass with that lower gravity too! We will have to enforce a no spitting rule, but we can fart all we want! :rofl2:


Easier? Your brass would fly further :p

angrypeccary
09-26-2012, 2:13 AM
the title of this thread sounds like a sniper was hit on the moon, must of been a helluva shot from earth. they should prove this theory on the next mythbusters.

donny douchebag
09-26-2012, 4:38 AM
Nice to see the death spiral of science education in America continues.

Lancear15
09-26-2012, 5:15 AM
Nice to see the death spiral of science education in America continues.

Nothing like some !@#$er chiming in about how stupid you all are, at the same time not adding anything to the discussion, or even remotely enlightening us with his incredible intelligence.

There is a wide spectrum of people on this forum. Some are kids, some not too bright, some highly educated and very intelligent. You fall into the a-hole category.

connorr931
09-26-2012, 7:16 AM
There is a subtle difference between weird and stupid.

The thought process behind this is that the bullet would travel more than far enough (with the diminished effects of gravity) to be effected by the curve of the moons surface and the moons atmosphere which would work together to keep the bullet on its original course. Just a theory but seems slightly plausible.

maitime
09-26-2012, 7:28 AM
The thought process behind this is that the bullet would travel more than far enough (with the diminished effects of gravity) to be effected by the curve of the moons surface and the moons atmosphere which would work together to keep the bullet on its original course. Just a theory but seems slightly plausible.

Ahh yes... Seems that we have neglected to take into account the atmosphere of the moon working in conjunction with gravity to stabilize a bullet for a few hours.

Merc1138
09-26-2012, 8:05 AM
The thought process behind this is that the bullet would travel more than far enough (with the diminished effects of gravity) to be effected by the curve of the moons surface and the moons atmosphere which would work together to keep the bullet on its original course. Just a theory but seems slightly plausible.

Uhh, what atmosphere? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_the_Moon

Even if the moon had at atmosphere, it would do nothing for stability. It would simply add more drag and slow the bullet down.

Also, even though the surface of the moon is curved, the bullet is still affected by gravity during the entire duration of passing over it's surface. Specifically it gets pulled into the surface of the moon at 1.62m/s^2. This is the same whether it's measured in front of the muzzle, or a mile down range. Obviously it's possible to have an object orbit the moon, but you're not going to be doing that with any gun fired from the surface.

http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj122/prisoner1138/Gravity-Law-Full1.gif

sharxbyte
09-26-2012, 9:32 AM
hey, if it missed the first time, theres always the second orbital trip... xD

AeroEngi
09-26-2012, 10:03 AM
Ahh yes... Seems that we have neglected to take into account the atmosphere of the moon working in conjunction with gravity to stabilize a bullet for a few hours.

The moon has no atmosphere and stabilizing a bullet has nothing to do with the atmosphere of the planet it's being shot on. Bullets are stabilized by gyroscopic stability similar to how some spacecraft/satellites are stabilized while in orbit.

connorr931
09-26-2012, 10:22 AM
This video illustrates what I was trying to explain. Iam not saying its likely to happen but it sure would be cool.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYf6av21x5c

Merc1138
09-26-2012, 10:27 AM
This video illustrates what I was trying to explain. Iam not saying its likely to happen but it sure would be cool.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYf6av21x5c

And that's already been discussed right here in this thread. You need a gun that shoots fast enough, even the video points out you'd need a gun that fires at least 1600m/s, or 5250 feet per second. No one's gun here is going to do that.

edit: There are some that could actually get close, like the .220 swift can apparently hit 1200 m/s, and it's possible with some "home brew" stuff to get faster than that, plus sabot rounds and so forth. But not someone's AR/AK/etc.

connorr931
09-26-2012, 10:29 AM
Yes as I said, its not likely to happen but sure would be cool.:)

Merc1138
09-26-2012, 10:35 AM
Just for the sake of clarity, it has been supposedly done by people doing some serious custom work(getting a bullet to go fast enough, not actually shooting clear around the moon).

http://www.accuratereloading.com/22-243.html

EricClay
09-26-2012, 10:56 AM
I'd like to see what happens when you fire a bullet along a Lagrange plane between the earth and the moon.. That would be one wild trajectory.

maitime
09-26-2012, 11:30 AM
The moon has no atmosphere and stabilizing a bullet has nothing to do with the atmosphere of the planet it's being shot on. Bullets are stabilized by gyroscopic stability similar to how some spacecraft/satellites are stabilized while in orbit.

Obviously.

Speedpower
09-26-2012, 12:51 PM
How about an air rifle?

jamespres2001
09-26-2012, 1:32 PM
the title of this thread sounds like a sniper was hit on the moon, must of been a helluva shot from earth. they should prove this theory on the next mythbusters.

Now that I look at it , I guess your right. I should have called it shooting a bullet on the moon.

Stardude82
09-26-2012, 1:57 PM
Here's a thought. The escape velocity of the moon is 2.4 km/s, but the escape velocity from the moon to get to earth is only 1.4 km/s or 4,600 ft/s. It's a little lower than the 1.6 km/s value for orbital velocity.

There are .308 10 gr. plastic training bullets that hit that sort speed out of a battle rifle. (http://www.wideners.com/itemdetail.cfm?item_id=8699) So if you had say a M1A with these sorts of bullets, you could actually shoot at things in earth orbit and if you had some sort of magic 10g bullet that wouldn't burn up on re-entry, things on earth.

TKM
09-26-2012, 2:51 PM
The thought process behind this is that the bullet would travel more than far enough (with the diminished effects of gravity) to be effected by the curve of the moons surface and the moons atmosphere which would work together to keep the bullet on its original course. Just a theory but seems slightly plausible.

The diameter of the moon is pretty close to the distance from San Diego to Green Bay.

2100+ miles. And a head shot, on yourself...

Merc1138
09-26-2012, 3:22 PM
The diameter of the moon is pretty close to the distance from San Diego to Green Bay.

2100+ miles. And a head shot, on yourself...

You need the circumference(or at least a of latitude or something). If you just use the diameter you had better have a bullet capable of boring through the center of the moon if that's the distance you're using to get from one side to the other :p

punisheryayarea
09-27-2012, 7:05 AM
NO NO NO you have to have one like this
http://jaydavis.tv/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/MoonGun_C.jpg

:rofl2:

CessnaDriver
09-27-2012, 7:43 AM
Moon Sniper.


Sounds like it could be a cool B-movie!

mif_slim
09-27-2012, 7:58 AM
I saw the title and I pictured a sniper actually getting shot while he was on the moon....man whatever inhibits the moon are a violent species. Hehe.

Lostsheep
09-27-2012, 10:14 AM
The moon has no atmosphere and stabilizing a bullet has nothing to do with the atmosphere of the planet it's being shot on. Bullets are stabilized by gyroscopic stability similar to how some spacecraft/satellites are stabilized while in orbit.

Would a bullet need to be stabilized in the absence of drag? Tumbling would not affect it's trajectory.

SpunkyJivl
09-27-2012, 10:17 AM
Sounds like one for Mythbusters! mmmmm Carrie.......

TKM
09-27-2012, 2:43 PM
NO NO NO you have to have one like this
http://jaydavis.tv/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/MoonGun_C.jpg

:rofl2:

The Crank crank demands an explanation.

Is it really that lonely out in space?