TargetTalk

A forum to talk about Olympic style shooting, rifle or pistol, 10 meters to 50 meters, and whatever is in between. Hosted by Pilkguns.com
It is currently Wed Nov 22, 2017 2:14 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 29 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Out there, in space
PostPosted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 11:53 pm 
Benjamini wrote:
Forgive me, but I could not reist:

Imagine an astronaut was allowed to bring his AP to the orbiting (in free fall that is) Spacelab during a mission. And of course he would want to enjoy the intriguing leisure time accupation of dry firing. (First fierarm ever brought to space?)

There would be no felt weight of the gun, no strain to the arm supporting the gun. But the restance to wobbling, jawing? It would be the very same as on the surface of the earth.


The only problem I see is that the wobbling is coused by the mussles fighting against the gravity. In space I guess the hold probably woud be closer to being perfect unless someone has other health problems.
Movement is not only in the wrist but in the arm and the rest of the body, which add to the wobbling.
Adding weight to the front of the pistol will have different effect on the wobbling coming from the wrist or the shoulder.
It may have stabilizing effect at first, but will make the mussles tired sooner adding to unwanted movement.
I guess you can not apply simple phisics to such a complex situation as human body.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Out there, in space
PostPosted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 12:41 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2005 2:48 am
Posts: 1186
Location: New Zealand
Benjamini wrote:
Forgive me, but I could not reist:

Imagine an astronaut was allowed to bring his AP to the orbiting (in free fall that is) Spacelab during a mission. And of course he would want to enjoy the intriguing leisure time accupation of dry firing. (First fierarm ever brought to space?)
.


I found it on the internet so it must be true!

You would probably think that space is the last place in the universe where one may find a shotgun. Of course the possibility of that to ever happen is rather slim, but nonetheless it doesn't mean that firearms cannot be found into space. Russian Soyuz capsules have been routinely carrying guns into space for some decades now, even though there seems to be no practical justification for such an action. Now Moscow negotiating the weapons in space ban treaty seems to have struck another deal, as nobody for now on will be able to carry firearms into space, but with one condition: Russia gets to keep those that are already in space!

So why did Russia carry weapons into space anyway? Well, if you consider that, in the fall of last year, a Soyuz spacecraft carrying three people on board landed far away from its designated spot, then things start to get a bit clearer. Nonetheless, we may have to remind ourselves that we are living in the year 2008, and the potential of an off-course that could lead to a delayed rescue mission should in fact be not zero, but somewhere below that.

Similar to the U.S. Gemini and Apollo spacecrafts, the Russian spacecrafts are also provided with emergency kits, containing water, food, clothing and a series of other miscellaneous for basic survival. However, Russian engineers thought this was hardly enough and also equipped the Soyuz spacecraft with a rather special firearm, carrying three barrels, a machete and a folding stock that can be used as a shovel, just in case a re-entry into Earth atmosphere goes terribly wrong and the spacecraft lands in a remote region of the Earth. But returns to Earth are not the only concern, team members with psychological problems may spell disaster in the presence of such a device.

Recently, as news report added that the firearms that have been used until recently on the Soyuz spacecrafts were to be replaced with sidearms, due to the fact that the ammunition for them has exceeded the shelf life, and Russia no longer holds control of the factory that used to produce them during the U.R.S.S. era.

Soyuz commander Yuri Malenchenko seems to have no idea, or so he claims, of the change of the type of firearms carried by Russian astronauts, neither the two astronauts, of which one American, commanded by the Russian astronaut, nor does NASA want to discuss problems that fall under the responsibility of the Russian space program.

During flights, the gun is packed into a metal canister located between two couches on the Soyuz spacecraft and is only used in case of a failed landing situation, then it is given as a present to the commander of the Soyuz capsule. The whole story started in 1965, when a Soyuz spacecraft landed in a remote area of Russian territory and apparently the crew had encountered hungry wolves, or bears, even though the rescue helicopter team stated that, in fact, the wolves were about 3 kilometers away the landing site, nowhere near the capsule.

In contrast, the U.S. space agency NASA, had never carried firearms into space, but machetes were provided just in case a capsule were to land in a jungle area, and even though rescue missions can localize a stranded space capsule in the matter of a few minutes, the firearms still remain on board Soyuz spacecrafts. Training usually takes place on the Black Sea, when the crew learn how to exit the spacecraft while it is floating on water.

Sure its useful in survival situations, but who has control over it? Astronaut Dave Wolf, part of the crew on board Mir between 1997-1998 says that the Soyuz commander controls the use of the gun. The problem is that between the commander of the capsule and gun, stand nothing and theoretically anyone could get a hold of it. That is kind of worrying, especially considering that the future space station program involves visits from space tourists. Not that I doubt the mental health of some of those people, but there were cases when mission commanders threatened to kill themselves.

Such devices should be at least kept locked, so that only the commander of the spacecraft has access to it. The next Soyuz capsule is to be launched into space on April 8, and it most likely is already containing a firearm, but, if the Russians really want to ban guns into space, they should start shifting towards non-lethal weapons!

Sorry, nothing to do with short barreled Morinis!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 8:31 am 
Looks like "Tyco" had a window seat during biology classes and missed manners classes all together.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 9:38 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 12:49 pm
Posts: 5242
Location: Ruislip, UK
Teacher wrote:
Looks like "Tyco" had a window seat during biology classes and missed manners classes all together.


So speaks a guest with the benefit of anonymity. Hardly the height of good manners.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: manners?
PostPosted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 12:50 pm 
David Levene wrote:
So speaks a guest with the benefit of anonymity. Hardly the height of good manners.


Anybody concerned about anonymity should at least try to be consistent about lecturing other posters when your chum "Tycho" doesn't really reveal much about his identity. You and I, David know "Tycho's" real name, but to the majority of the readers of this forum, he's anonymous.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: manners?
PostPosted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 1:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 12:49 pm
Posts: 5242
Location: Ruislip, UK
Josef C wrote:
Anybody concerned about anonymity should at least try to be consistent about lecturing other posters when your chum "Tycho" doesn't really reveal much about his identity.


I disagree.

I don't really care what anyones "real" name is; mine might not actually be David Levene. If someone uses any name, and signs in with it when they use Target Talk (or other such forum) then others get to know them, their views and their history, just as if they signed in with their real name.

In a similar way someone who posts as a guest but always uses their name, for example Steve Swartz, is easily identifiable and others can build up a picture and decide whether they respect that person's opinion.

I don't need to know someone's true identity. Knowing someone's real name does not automatically gain them my respect. That is gained from their history.

Someone who just posts as a guest however, with no attempt to identify him/herself will always be a one-hit wonder. It immediately makes you think they have something to hide.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Out there, in space
PostPosted: Tue Nov 10, 2009 6:36 am 
j-team wrote:
Sure its useful in survival situations, but who has control over it? Astronaut Dave Wolf, part of the crew on board Mir between 1997-1998 says that the Soyuz commander controls the use of the gun. The problem is that between the commander of the capsule and gun, stand nothing and theoretically anyone could get a hold of it. That is kind of worrying, especially considering that the future space station program involves visits from space tourists. Not that I doubt the mental health of some of those people, but there were cases when mission commanders threatened to kill themselves.


In this case it seems it would be like a pilot of a commercial jet in the USA undertaking training and being certified to carry a loaded pistol in the cockpit.

"Oh no!" claims the antigun crusaders. "What's to stop the pilot from shooting the rest of the cockpit crew?"

I guess the same restraint it takes to not deliberately fly the plane into the ground.

If a man is capable of flying a spacecraft in space, one must accept that they have enough mental facilities to avoid such an eventuality.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 14, 2009 1:12 pm 
Baqck tot he topic of the thread . . .

Yes, the shooter would be continually adding force to the system in order to counteract the inertia provided by the last input of force etc. etc.

For the same input of force, the system with the shortest moment arm(s) (a small solid sphere for example) whoud exhibit the least directional stability (a little force providing a large positional variance) while a large, hollow sphere of the same mass would provide the greatest directional stability (requires more force to create the same positional variance).

Of course, by effectively removing gravity the problem now involves spheres instead of rods, but whatever.

The physics is the same.

(start spinning the spheres and the situation becomes obvious)


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Morini 162EI Short
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 11:48 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2017 7:34 am
Posts: 97
Location: Copperhill Tennessee 37317
Refreshing a thread from 2009.

Technical opinions on long-barrel vs. short barrel solicited.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 29 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group