I stopped cosmonauts from carrying guns (2014)(spectrum.ieee.org)
spectrum.ieee.org
I stopped cosmonauts from carrying guns (2014)
https://spectrum.ieee.org/how-i-stop-cosmonauts-carrying-guns
121 comments
Considering he's claiming credit for getting guns out of space, I'm disappointed but not surprised he failed to mention that the gun was required to fend off bears after the Voskhod 2 mission. So thus far the gun's record is +2 human lives.
Yeah. It should be noted that in places where Soyuz capsules have historically landed there is a real danger of man eating bears and/or wolves. That is what the gun is for.
From Wikipedia:
> Leonov and Belyayev could have likely been recovered by a helicopter with the use of a rope and ladder or rescue basket but Soviet Leader Leonid Brezhnev strictly prohibited cosmonauts to be rescued with those methods.[why?] This resulted in Leonov and Belyayev spending a total of 3 days, two nights, in the forest before finally being recovered
So, yeah, but this paints a different picture. Perhaps dropping a gun from the helicopter would have sufficed too.
> Leonov and Belyayev could have likely been recovered by a helicopter with the use of a rope and ladder or rescue basket but Soviet Leader Leonid Brezhnev strictly prohibited cosmonauts to be rescued with those methods.[why?] This resulted in Leonov and Belyayev spending a total of 3 days, two nights, in the forest before finally being recovered
So, yeah, but this paints a different picture. Perhaps dropping a gun from the helicopter would have sufficed too.
Likely isn't good enough. What if the helicopter wasn't there fast enough? What if they weren't immediately found? It's a pretty big place. You want to stack your chances as much as possible.
If you are quoting Wikipedia then quote this too:
> During this time helicopters dropped supplies for the cosmonauts including warm clothes, boots, water containers, and more. Helicopters also dropped doctors and technicians close to the landing site so they could trek to the landing site and support the cosmonauts. Others were also dropped by helicopters to start clearing a landing pad that was closer to the capsule. With more resources and supplies after their first night the landing site was more sustainable. This included a fire, a makeshift log cabin and they were even brought cheese, sausage, and bread for supper.[20] Finally, after spending two cold nights in a dense forest, Leonov and Belyayev were able to ski 9 kilometers with the help of some rescuers to reach the helicopters landing site
> During this time helicopters dropped supplies for the cosmonauts including warm clothes, boots, water containers, and more. Helicopters also dropped doctors and technicians close to the landing site so they could trek to the landing site and support the cosmonauts. Others were also dropped by helicopters to start clearing a landing pad that was closer to the capsule. With more resources and supplies after their first night the landing site was more sustainable. This included a fire, a makeshift log cabin and they were even brought cheese, sausage, and bread for supper.[20] Finally, after spending two cold nights in a dense forest, Leonov and Belyayev were able to ski 9 kilometers with the help of some rescuers to reach the helicopters landing site
Note: GP originally mentioned specifically the Voskhod 2 mission. And I should have added a link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voskhod_2#Crew_recovery
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voskhod_2#Crew_recovery
It might not be pronounced out loud, but in deep taiga you could meet with people that you would rather not want to meet with. Which could end with bad outcome. I don't think that chances of being eaten by bear are much higher. Bears don't really hunt people with very rare exceptions. And guns could definitely help there as well.
In the early days, even just a humble farmer might think you're a space alien, or worse, an American. When Yuri Gagarin's flight re-entered he ejected and landed a little off the target zone. The first people who encountered him were perhaps a little apprehensive?
> A farmer and her granddaughter, Rita Nurskanova, observed the strange scene of a figure in a bright orange suit with a large white helmet landing near them by parachute. Gagarin later recalled, "When they saw me in my space suit and the parachute dragging alongside as I walked, they started to back away in fear. I told them, don't be afraid, I am a Soviet citizen like you, who has descended from space and I must find a telephone to call Moscow!"
> A farmer and her granddaughter, Rita Nurskanova, observed the strange scene of a figure in a bright orange suit with a large white helmet landing near them by parachute. Gagarin later recalled, "When they saw me in my space suit and the parachute dragging alongside as I walked, they started to back away in fear. I told them, don't be afraid, I am a Soviet citizen like you, who has descended from space and I must find a telephone to call Moscow!"
> In the early days, even just a humble farmer might think you're a space alien, or worse, an American. When Yuri Gagarin's flight re-entered he ejected and landed a little off the target zone. The first people who encountered him were perhaps a little apprehensive?
I think you're going way, waaaay far beyond the evidence to suggest that these farmers though Gagarin was a space alien. That's a funny little narrative, but I don't think it's remotely necessary.
These remote Soviet people weren't likely any stupider than you or me... Less educated, sure--but they knew what human beings looked like, and were aware of the fact that airplanes existed. This was more than a decade after WWII ended, after all.
I can think of a hundred perfectly terrestrial reasons why these isolated, remote farmers would have good reason to be apprehensive in this situation... I'd imagine they get almost zero visitors, so the sight of any strangers would probably be the big news of the year--let alone a military aviator parachuting down in bright orange clothes.
In fairness, I should confess that I'm pointing this out because it kinda bugs me for us to be looking down on these folks, as if they're children or simpletons. At the very least, that narrative seems to serve our own egos, more so than any interest in accuracy.
I think you're going way, waaaay far beyond the evidence to suggest that these farmers though Gagarin was a space alien. That's a funny little narrative, but I don't think it's remotely necessary.
These remote Soviet people weren't likely any stupider than you or me... Less educated, sure--but they knew what human beings looked like, and were aware of the fact that airplanes existed. This was more than a decade after WWII ended, after all.
I can think of a hundred perfectly terrestrial reasons why these isolated, remote farmers would have good reason to be apprehensive in this situation... I'd imagine they get almost zero visitors, so the sight of any strangers would probably be the big news of the year--let alone a military aviator parachuting down in bright orange clothes.
In fairness, I should confess that I'm pointing this out because it kinda bugs me for us to be looking down on these folks, as if they're children or simpletons. At the very least, that narrative seems to serve our own egos, more so than any interest in accuracy.
Plenty of Americans in reasonably cosmopolitan areas reacted poorly to space-related uncertainty. Grover's Mill[1] is within walking distance of Princeton campus.
People didn't know what to think, and the Soviets were far more secretive of their space program than the Americans were - Their successes were announced after the fact, their failures were quiet. I would not have blamed anyone in rural Siberia for not recognizing a cosmonaut in a spacesuit/jumpsuit as "human".
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grovers_Mill,_New_Jersey
People didn't know what to think, and the Soviets were far more secretive of their space program than the Americans were - Their successes were announced after the fact, their failures were quiet. I would not have blamed anyone in rural Siberia for not recognizing a cosmonaut in a spacesuit/jumpsuit as "human".
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grovers_Mill,_New_Jersey
That is a pretty good counter-example, I have got to admit... I'm not convinced, but yeah, you got a hell of a point there.
I think the US in 1938 was maybe in a distinct situation, though... For one, the US in the 30s may have been primed to thoughts of space aliens by the consumption of mass quantities of SF--radio serials, films, books, etc.
Also, the real-world news in 1938 was pretty tense, and very heavy on the specific theme of invasion... WWII was already swinging in the Pacific, and everybody in Europe was expecting the shooting to start soon. Here in the US, there was a general sense that we'd get violently drawn into it, sooner or later.
So I dunno... You definitely moved the needle for me on this one, but I'm still pretty skeptical that some isolated Siberian farmers in the 1960s would go straight for the "space aliens" explanation. Maybe I'm just rationalizing my earlier post--I'd be the last to know.
I think the US in 1938 was maybe in a distinct situation, though... For one, the US in the 30s may have been primed to thoughts of space aliens by the consumption of mass quantities of SF--radio serials, films, books, etc.
Also, the real-world news in 1938 was pretty tense, and very heavy on the specific theme of invasion... WWII was already swinging in the Pacific, and everybody in Europe was expecting the shooting to start soon. Here in the US, there was a general sense that we'd get violently drawn into it, sooner or later.
So I dunno... You definitely moved the needle for me on this one, but I'm still pretty skeptical that some isolated Siberian farmers in the 1960s would go straight for the "space aliens" explanation. Maybe I'm just rationalizing my earlier post--I'd be the last to know.
Just look at [0]
There is no doubt those people saw StarWars in some way or the other and they definitely saw stormtrooper armour in some time in their lives. Yet...
[0] https://globalnews.ca/video/6908239/woman-in-star-wars-storm...
There is no doubt those people saw StarWars in some way or the other and they definitely saw stormtrooper armour in some time in their lives. Yet...
[0] https://globalnews.ca/video/6908239/woman-in-star-wars-storm...
We could imagine an infinity of possible theories that might explain why these Russian people reacted with fear at Gagarin's landing. But being possible doesn't mean something is correct, or even plausible.
Rather than space aliens, I find it far more compelling to consider that:
• Russia had been severely traumatized by WWII, less than a generation earlier. Tens of millions died in combat and of starvation.
• After WWII, Russia awas again severely traumatized by Stalinism and his political purges. For a decade, anyone who was even suspected of stepping out of line was oiable to get imprisoned or just executed.
• During the 1950s and early 1960s, the CIA was attempting to train Russian expatriates in the West to return to Russia as spies and organizers of underground resistance in the event WWIII broke out. The program was a complete disaster... The CIA trained and equipped dozens of young men, and then PARACHUTED them into Eastern Bloc countries,after which none of them were ever heard from, ever again. (It's assumed they were all immediately caught and executed.)
So in the early 1960s, when some dude in a parachute lands in your village, I think it's far less speculative to assume that they were afraid Yuri Gagarin might be a Western spy.
No need for space aliens... And no need to insult the intelligence of these Russians by lumping them in with ol' Karen up in Lethbridge, who was such a simple rube that we all laugh at her for calling the police on a Stormtrooper.
Honestly, I see why the "space aliens" narrative is appealing: It's funnier! It's hilarious to imagine old timey Russian villagers, hiding in fear of space invaders.
Unless anybody reading this happens to be Russian, in which case we'd be making up silly stories that mainly serve to depeict their parents or grandparents as a bunch of simple, stupid, gullible pigeons.
And I just don't see the point in that whole line of thinking, when we already have much more plausible theories, already.
Rather than space aliens, I find it far more compelling to consider that:
• Russia had been severely traumatized by WWII, less than a generation earlier. Tens of millions died in combat and of starvation.
• After WWII, Russia awas again severely traumatized by Stalinism and his political purges. For a decade, anyone who was even suspected of stepping out of line was oiable to get imprisoned or just executed.
• During the 1950s and early 1960s, the CIA was attempting to train Russian expatriates in the West to return to Russia as spies and organizers of underground resistance in the event WWIII broke out. The program was a complete disaster... The CIA trained and equipped dozens of young men, and then PARACHUTED them into Eastern Bloc countries,after which none of them were ever heard from, ever again. (It's assumed they were all immediately caught and executed.)
So in the early 1960s, when some dude in a parachute lands in your village, I think it's far less speculative to assume that they were afraid Yuri Gagarin might be a Western spy.
No need for space aliens... And no need to insult the intelligence of these Russians by lumping them in with ol' Karen up in Lethbridge, who was such a simple rube that we all laugh at her for calling the police on a Stormtrooper.
Honestly, I see why the "space aliens" narrative is appealing: It's funnier! It's hilarious to imagine old timey Russian villagers, hiding in fear of space invaders.
Unless anybody reading this happens to be Russian, in which case we'd be making up silly stories that mainly serve to depeict their parents or grandparents as a bunch of simple, stupid, gullible pigeons.
And I just don't see the point in that whole line of thinking, when we already have much more plausible theories, already.
Occam demands not to dig deeper than it should be enough.
Bunch of people, who lives in the deeps of an agrarian country (and TV isn't available yet), sees something extremely out of regular order of things. And that is coming for them! Of course they would be afraid of this totally unfamiliar experience.
Some notes:
I'm not sure how far those people were from the point where Gagarin ejected, but they probably heard some strange sounds before the encounter.
Parachutes were a known thing by that time, though if you never seen it on the ground before you probably wouldn't recognize it as such.
Pilots were still flying in a pilot's flight gear[0], at least in the collective consciousness. Someone/something in a big round helmet and a bright orange suit doesn't register as a pilot's flight gear nor as something have seen before. You can see how (a decade before) some people perceived the "space suits", unsurprisingly - just a like a winter soldier gear. *grin*
By the '60s the understanding on how a space suit should look emerge, but it still was quite off the real deal: [2] (Be sure to check mini-Godzillas attack at ~1:00!)
As you can see [3] there were a bright red CCCP label on his helmet. Looks like that didn't helped much.
[0] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pilot_Boris_Safonov....
[1] https://youtu.be/Q59hwGqL3Q4
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjnZ3Nc8VZ4
[3] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gagarin_suit.jpg
Bunch of people, who lives in the deeps of an agrarian country (and TV isn't available yet), sees something extremely out of regular order of things. And that is coming for them! Of course they would be afraid of this totally unfamiliar experience.
Some notes:
I'm not sure how far those people were from the point where Gagarin ejected, but they probably heard some strange sounds before the encounter.
Parachutes were a known thing by that time, though if you never seen it on the ground before you probably wouldn't recognize it as such.
Pilots were still flying in a pilot's flight gear[0], at least in the collective consciousness. Someone/something in a big round helmet and a bright orange suit doesn't register as a pilot's flight gear nor as something have seen before. You can see how (a decade before) some people perceived the "space suits", unsurprisingly - just a like a winter soldier gear. *grin*
By the '60s the understanding on how a space suit should look emerge, but it still was quite off the real deal: [2] (Be sure to check mini-Godzillas attack at ~1:00!)
As you can see [3] there were a bright red CCCP label on his helmet. Looks like that didn't helped much.
[0] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pilot_Boris_Safonov....
[1] https://youtu.be/Q59hwGqL3Q4
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjnZ3Nc8VZ4
[3] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gagarin_suit.jpg
For what it's worth, when I was writing my post I was trying to empathize with them, not make fun of them. Space aliens is honestly something I would think of myself in that situation, I think, at least fleetingly. We're not all so down to Earth, so to speak. :)
[deleted]
who could you meet in deep taiga that might harm you?
> but in deep taiga you could meet with people that you would rather not want to meet with
Now you got me curious. Who are these dangerous taiga people?
Now you got me curious. Who are these dangerous taiga people?
One example is criminals who’re hiding from police. Another example is just some drunk locals. Law enforcement is weak in remote areas. Think of Wild West, but without its romantics.
Required to fend off hypothetical bears or actual ones? I can find no source mentioning an actual encounter with wild animals. Also it seems like we should be past the days of leaving cosmo/astronauts in the wilderness by themselves for 3 days before picking them up.
Seems like theoretical bears according to wikipedia:
> The location in which the capsule touched down was too dense for a helicopter to land and recover the crew. Leonov and Belyayev could have likely been recovered by a helicopter with the use of a rope and ladder or rescue basket but Soviet Leader Leonid Brezhnev strictly prohibited cosmonauts to be rescued with those methods. [why?] This resulted in Leonov and Belyayev spending a total of 3 days, two nights, in the forest before finally being recovered. The cosmonauts did come partially equipped for this situation taking a survival kit which included a knife and a pistol.
(Loving the why)
However "we went to space but our cosmonauts got eaten by bears on landing" would be pretty high on the "black eye" scale.
> The location in which the capsule touched down was too dense for a helicopter to land and recover the crew. Leonov and Belyayev could have likely been recovered by a helicopter with the use of a rope and ladder or rescue basket but Soviet Leader Leonid Brezhnev strictly prohibited cosmonauts to be rescued with those methods. [why?] This resulted in Leonov and Belyayev spending a total of 3 days, two nights, in the forest before finally being recovered. The cosmonauts did come partially equipped for this situation taking a survival kit which included a knife and a pistol.
(Loving the why)
However "we went to space but our cosmonauts got eaten by bears on landing" would be pretty high on the "black eye" scale.
A shame there’s no mod for this design challenge in KSP
I'm sure BDArmory could get you most of the way there.
Maybe they could just deliver the guns by helicopter.
But there weren't any bears, they should have delivered some bears by helicopter first.
Or shoot the bears from the helicopter, full "Apocalypse now" style!
I have some friends who've done week-long ski tours in remote parts of Siberia and the Russian Far East. Their guides all carried serious rifles or shotguns with slugs, and made sure everyone in the party knew how to shoot.
Their closest Grizzly encounter was a bear that stumbled across them, and charged at their lead skier from ~200m out. The guide shot the bear twice, but it still managed to get within 20m of the group before it dropped.
Here in the US, I know two hikers who've been attacked by Grizzlies in the Rockies, and another guy who got jumped in Alaska. All three survived, but required medical evacuation and hospitalization... The guy in Alaska nearly bled to death from a broken rib tearing into the blood vessels feeding his kidney.
So I'm not sure what the likelihood of bear attacks would be--but it does happen, and the consequences can be quite severe.
Their closest Grizzly encounter was a bear that stumbled across them, and charged at their lead skier from ~200m out. The guide shot the bear twice, but it still managed to get within 20m of the group before it dropped.
Here in the US, I know two hikers who've been attacked by Grizzlies in the Rockies, and another guy who got jumped in Alaska. All three survived, but required medical evacuation and hospitalization... The guy in Alaska nearly bled to death from a broken rib tearing into the blood vessels feeding his kidney.
So I'm not sure what the likelihood of bear attacks would be--but it does happen, and the consequences can be quite severe.
[deleted]
Did you wait until after you got covid to take the vaccine?
There is a known danger of bear attacks[1] and we have a safe & effective countermeasure. Why not be prepared?
[1] https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/bears-eat-wealthy-coupl...
There is a known danger of bear attacks[1] and we have a safe & effective countermeasure. Why not be prepared?
[1] https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/bears-eat-wealthy-coupl...
If you read TFA there is a perfectly reasonable suggestion that the gun should be only accessible from outside the capsule, thus reserving it for its intended use after landing. That suggestion was rebuffed.
It's perfectly reasonable from a theoretical standpoint, but what kind of engineering modifications would be involved? It's not as simple as bolting a compartment to the side. They'd have to engineer something recessed so that it doesn't interfere with the aerodynamic profile of the capsule. Do-able, sure, feasible, probably not. What would happen if the capsule landed gun compartment side down? If I were a Russian engineer and project manager I'd tell you to get out of my office with such a frivolous request.
Edit: I also realized that an external firearm container would likely imply the handgun would be exposed to the vacuum of space and the temperature swings involved. Given that Soyuz capsules can be in space for months at a time, there would have to be considerable re-engineering of the firearm and the ammunition in order to accommodate this proposed change.
Edit: I also realized that an external firearm container would likely imply the handgun would be exposed to the vacuum of space and the temperature swings involved. Given that Soyuz capsules can be in space for months at a time, there would have to be considerable re-engineering of the firearm and the ammunition in order to accommodate this proposed change.
Wouldn’t heat of re-entry potentially cause a cook-off? That could be incredibly dangerous.
So if the bear is outside of the capsule and you're safely (for now) inside it, do you risk going outside to get the gun? Or do you wait for the bear to peel open the capsule like a can of sardines?
It’s an airtight capsule. The bear isn’t going to be interested in it until you open it.
Also, bears don’t have can openers.
Also, bears don’t have can openers.
In Yosemite, park rangers will happily show you many pictures of cars that were torn open by bears searching for food: door frames pried out and bent in half, sheet metal gouged and dented, upholstery shredded. These are just the cute and cuddly North American black bears; the brown bears in Russia are 2-3x larger, with claws several inches longer.
It does not seem likely that a crashed cosmonaut would encounter hungry bears or wolves, but I can see why they might want to take precautions.
It does not seem likely that a crashed cosmonaut would encounter hungry bears or wolves, but I can see why they might want to take precautions.
> The bear isn’t going to be interested in it until you open it.
So you open the door, you see a bear, it sees/smells you and starts running, and you close the door just in time to avoid being immediately eaten. Now what?
> Also, bears don’t have can openers.
Bears are the can openers.
So you open the door, you see a bear, it sees/smells you and starts running, and you close the door just in time to avoid being immediately eaten. Now what?
> Also, bears don’t have can openers.
Bears are the can openers.
Because there's also a known danger of mental health challenges with astronauts and that risk must be weight against potential bear attacks.
This is comical. There are a 1000 of other ways to make things go wrong in space.
Surely adding the 1001st way is a way of increasing the chance of things going wrong.
I don't understand why some people refuse to accept this is a matter of tradeoffs and the presence of a gun isn't an absolutely good or bad thing.
I don't understand why some people refuse to accept this is a matter of tradeoffs and the presence of a gun isn't an absolutely good or bad thing.
Many people in the USA see guns with religious fervour. It's not a matter of logic or risk mitigation, it's a matter of faith in guns.
[deleted]
"A wolf remains a wolf, even if he hasn't eaten your sheep."
Is a pistol an effective countermeasure for an attacking bear?
The TP-82 design, while technically a pistol, has a double-barrel shotgun mounted on top of another barrel that fires 5.45x39 rounds (same as an AK-47). A lot more punch than your typical pistol. I wouldn't want to be a bear looking down the wrong end of one.
AK-47 is 7.62x39
AK-74 is 5.45x39
A pistol is better than a sharp stick. There was a Grizzly killed in Montana a few years ago with a 9mm, the bear was spooked and attacked, iirc the gun was a sub-compact, so figure no more than 12 rounds if he shot and landed all of them.
As my friend said - a single shot 22 rifle is better than a club; it's a club that shoots a 22 round!
The point is the best gun is the one you have with you at the time.
The point is the best gun is the one you have with you at the time.
yes - usually larger caliber and often a revolver, ie:
https://blog.cheaperthandirt.com/best-6-handguns-bear-countr...
Per wikipedia: "It was intended as a survival aid to be used after landings and before recovery in the Siberian wilderness."
Why is banning them worth celebrating?
Why is banning them worth celebrating?
> Of course, plans were to use it only in special circumstances *on return to Earth*. But in space, on occasion, well-laid plans have a way of turning out very differently. In my publicity campaign, I suggested the presence of the gun, especially in light of recent space team psychological problems, might be an invitation to a future disaster.
There is something about it just so frustrating in his writing, he's so proud to have been a pest about it; the author is an American and NASA doesn't want images of cosmonauts with guns, cool. That's as far as that should have ever gone.
But don't impose your qualms on your Russian colleagues. Seriously? They were reunited with the earth with the intent to survive in less than ideal conditions, after being in SPACE of all places. Come on.
There is something about it just so frustrating in his writing, he's so proud to have been a pest about it; the author is an American and NASA doesn't want images of cosmonauts with guns, cool. That's as far as that should have ever gone.
But don't impose your qualms on your Russian colleagues. Seriously? They were reunited with the earth with the intent to survive in less than ideal conditions, after being in SPACE of all places. Come on.
What makes it even funnier is that during the period when this article was published, NASA didn't even have a functioning method of getting cosmonauts to the ISS. And meanwhile this guy is spending his time and energy trying to get Russia to remove an item from their safety kit, not trying to advocate for a US manned spaceflight capability. Kinda goes to show where bureaucrats' priorities lie.
Not really.
I don't think we should rejoice in limiting their ability to protect themselves from something that may kill them.
I don't think we should rejoice in limiting their ability to protect themselves from something that may kill them.
The road to hell, or a bear free landing, is paved with good intentions. Sure the guns are for bears. But once guns are a norm in space they will eventually be used in space.
>"But once guns are a norm in space they will eventually be used in space."
For what purpose though? It would make absolutely no sense whatsoever to fire a gun in a spacecraft. Firing a gun on an EVA would run into two main issues. One, the gun is likely to jam or not even work - metal has a tendency to spontaneously weld in the heat and vacuum of space. Two, orbital mechanics means that hitting a target is not as easy as pointing and shooting. The bullet won't simply go in a straight line, and the person firing it is going to get knocked back and probably lose control.
For what purpose though? It would make absolutely no sense whatsoever to fire a gun in a spacecraft. Firing a gun on an EVA would run into two main issues. One, the gun is likely to jam or not even work - metal has a tendency to spontaneously weld in the heat and vacuum of space. Two, orbital mechanics means that hitting a target is not as easy as pointing and shooting. The bullet won't simply go in a straight line, and the person firing it is going to get knocked back and probably lose control.
What about... every other situation in space? One country decides its standard to bring guns into the ISS. Conflict starts on earth. Country with guns now holds hostage other astronauts.
Would the gun be smart to use inside a space craft? No. Would the gun work as intended inside a space craft? No. Could it possible cause damage that would kill everyone inside? Maybe.
Would it work as a tool to control others regardless? Yes.
It seems like you're being willfully naive or are just pro guns everywhere. Even space.
Would the gun be smart to use inside a space craft? No. Would the gun work as intended inside a space craft? No. Could it possible cause damage that would kill everyone inside? Maybe.
Would it work as a tool to control others regardless? Yes.
It seems like you're being willfully naive or are just pro guns everywhere. Even space.
Then we should celebrate that the gun has been removed. It was a danger for everybody.
I wholeheartedly disagree and I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion. I was pointing out that using the gun 'as a gun', so to speak, would make no sense whatsoever in space.
> Why is banning them worth celebrating?
Hoplophobia: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hoplophobia
Which is to say: it’s not worth celebrating, but someone afflicted with hoplophobia might think that it is.
Hoplophobia: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hoplophobia
Which is to say: it’s not worth celebrating, but someone afflicted with hoplophobia might think that it is.
I guess because bear spray is a thing now.
I just think it's weird. If part of my coworkers' job was involved landing in the Siberian wilderness and they carried a gun to protect themselves, I wouldn't go out of my way to disarm them and then congratulate myself for it. Not even if it was David.
The very idea of guns make some people crazy - for or against, usually against.
Would the spray can be safe for 0 atmospheres (in emergencies in the capsule?)
I would expect that they are puncture resistant, so able to survive > 1 atmosphere change, and I imagine if you're at 0 atmospheres if you can smell the bear spray it's probably not actually your biggest issue.
No good on wolves.
Right, this is nothing like the 23mm autocannon mounted on Salyut 3. It's just a tool.
a4a4a4a4(1)
There is a word for an irrational fear of this particular type of tool: hoplophobia
Moon's haunted.
Parent's referencing this meme: https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/moons-haunted
A bit of a spoiler -- this is also a plot point in Astronaut Chris Hadfield's novel "The Apollo Murders".
I’m pretty sure cosmonauts still carry guns.
Weapons in Space are inevitable with Space Force.
Even Elon Musk is involved: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink#Military_satellites
Even Elon Musk is involved: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink#Military_satellites
Go read up on the Almaz.
The Soviets mounted a 23mm cannon on one of their early stations.
Long before the Space Force.
The Soviets mounted a 23mm cannon on one of their early stations.
Long before the Space Force.
I am nostalgic for days when resisting militarization of space seemed possible, before the "US Space Force".
Go read up on the Soviet Almaz station from the 1970s, and reconcile that with the Space Force from the 2020s.
For the curious: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almaz#Defense_measures
Ah, you mean those halcyon days when China blew up a satellite in 2007 to demonstrate its anti-satellite military capabilities and caused a huge debris field?
https://swfound.org/media/9550/chinese_asat_fact_sheet_updat...
https://swfound.org/media/9550/chinese_asat_fact_sheet_updat...
Space Force is just an org chart change. There is nothing new that wasn't already being done before.
There was never a point in time where spaceflight wasn't militarized to some degree. Even France has a space force. The US Space Force isn't some lurch towards militarism, it's a glorified bureaucratic reshuffling of what the DoD was already doing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_space_forces,_units,_a...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_space_forces,_units,_a...
They used to have at least pretend they weren't doing it, because there was popular demand to avoid it. I miss those days. When we believed this was possible, and there was demand for it, hope for it, and it was a real topic for international treaties, and governments had to figure out how to do it anyway. I'm not talking about 2007, but earlier. The evidence of that period is in the OP, that's the era he's talking about. Now nobody hopes for anything but forever war everywhere.
I am nostalgic for when some tribes of hunter-gatherers in middle east presumably resisted militarization.
A gun might be useful on a space walk when you lose grip and are about to fly off into empty space. Just shoot in the opposite direction of where you want to go :) Perhaps a nice plot device for Gravity II ...
This was a common plot device in 1940s and 1950s space SciFi. In the 60s, there was some preliminary work at NASA on jetpack propulsion with the goal of testing out the concept on Gemini spacewalks (didn't actually happen until much, much later), and jet packs replaced guns as the preferred propulsory mechanism in SciFi space literature.
But the gas gun concept was actually realized and used on Gemini flights:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hand-held_maneuvering_unit
Funnily enough orbital mechanics don’t work that way. To accelerate towards an object ahead of you in your orbital plane you need to lose velocity, drop into a slightly lower orbit, then gain velocity to slow down and intercept.
Velocity is tightly coupled to altitude when orbiting.
Velocity is tightly coupled to altitude when orbiting.
Is that relevant at relative speeds of say 1 m/s and distances of a few tens of meters?
No. Thrusting the "intuitive" way will indeed bring you closer to your target in the short term. Over time (specifically, enough time to be an appreciable fraction of the orbital period) the difference in speed will cause you to drift into a higher or lower orbit, but at low speeds and low distances this effect is tiny, and you can easily compensate for it by thrusting radially.
See this Space.SE post: https://space.stackexchange.com/q/44622
Or just play KSP :)
See this Space.SE post: https://space.stackexchange.com/q/44622
Or just play KSP :)
This effect is pretty pronounced in KSP at distances of a hundred meters or more. Trying to dock the intuitive way is pretty much impossible.
It's easier if you put SAS in target-tracking mode and use it to keep your velocity vector pointed towards the target (by aligning the target and prograde crosshairs). But yeah, once the distance gets into the triple digits it's definitely time to think about giving up on the docking attempt and just fixing your orbit.
Note also that this effect is a lot stronger in KSP than in real life, since Kerbin has a much smaller radius than Earth and therefore orbital periods are shorter (assuming the same altitude).
Note also that this effect is a lot stronger in KSP than in real life, since Kerbin has a much smaller radius than Earth and therefore orbital periods are shorter (assuming the same altitude).
No, only when you get close to being on the other side of the planet by the time you reach the other spacecraft. Or take even longer, of course.
> In my publicity campaign, I suggested the presence of the gun, especially in light of recent space team psychological problems, might be an invitation to a future disaster.
The problem with guns is that they are designed for one clear purpose, someone that gets into some mental problem may see one and get ideas.
The problem with guns is that they are designed for one clear purpose, someone that gets into some mental problem may see one and get ideas.
If an astronaut develops a mental health problem in space, what’s going to stop them from opening the hatch or probably a thousand other things that would result in the deaths of everyone aboard? Guns are just a distraction in this case, or more precisely, removal of guns from this situation doesn’t seem to meaningfully reduce risk.
That said, I have no idea why astronauts need guns; they’re unlikely to encounter hostile humans or animals and shooting isn’t a practical hobby in space. Maybe in case they land in a bad neighborhood or wilderness? In that case, why not just store the guns on the outside of the landing module, making the guns difficult (and obvious) to access while in space.
That said, I have no idea why astronauts need guns; they’re unlikely to encounter hostile humans or animals and shooting isn’t a practical hobby in space. Maybe in case they land in a bad neighborhood or wilderness? In that case, why not just store the guns on the outside of the landing module, making the guns difficult (and obvious) to access while in space.
> Maybe in case they land in a bad neighborhood or wilderness?
Exactly this, and this is why it was a Soviet/Russian practice - their spacecraft make ground landings, instead of splashing down at sea. In fact, when the Voskhod 2 navigation system failed, it landed in a wilderness area so remote the men on board had to spend two nights in the snow before rescue. One of these cosmonauts was Alexei Leonov, who went on to a leadership position in the cosmonaut program: the survival gun was his initiative.
Exactly this, and this is why it was a Soviet/Russian practice - their spacecraft make ground landings, instead of splashing down at sea. In fact, when the Voskhod 2 navigation system failed, it landed in a wilderness area so remote the men on board had to spend two nights in the snow before rescue. One of these cosmonauts was Alexei Leonov, who went on to a leadership position in the cosmonaut program: the survival gun was his initiative.
> That said, I have no idea why astronauts need guns; they’re
> unlikely to encounter hostile humans or animals
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TP-82_Cosmonaut_survival_pisto...
Have guns been tested for those temperature swings, or the primers and other explosive components? Do they off gas in zero atmosphere?
You could always store the ammo separately
While I'm sure there are plenty of ways a determined astronaut could wreak havoc on the ISS, opening the hatch isn't one of them. Much like on an airplane, the pressure differential makes it impossible to open when the inside is pressurized and the outside is not.
Uh, on an airplane, you absolutely CAN open the door at altitude because the pressure inside is greater than outside.
I think you’re thinking of submarines, where the higher pressure outside holds the hatches shut.
I think you’re thinking of submarines, where the higher pressure outside holds the hatches shut.
That's why Submarine hatches are conical and open out, and airplane hatches open in. The pressure differential keeps them closed.
Yes, the plane door eventually pivots out of the hole and hands on the outside but it first had to move inside the cabin a little bit
Yes, the plane door eventually pivots out of the hole and hands on the outside but it first had to move inside the cabin a little bit
Do we know for sure there are no weapons on the ISS?
>probably a thousand other things that would result in the deaths of everyone aboard? Guns are just a distraction in this case, or more precisely, removal of guns from this situation doesn’t seem to meaningfully reduce risk
I imagine that many of these things would involve either:
1. More steps/time to execute than pulling the trigger on a gun, thus leave more time for the rest of the crew to react.
2. Or require more planning than pulling the trigger on a gun and thus more chance to rethink one's plan + a chance to recover from that mental health problem as well as higher chance that the rest of the crew will be able to assess the mental health problem and treat it.
At either case, I don't see how _having access_ to a device that can functions as a death switch would not be considered at least a meaningful risk to the space vessel or its crew.
I imagine that many of these things would involve either:
1. More steps/time to execute than pulling the trigger on a gun, thus leave more time for the rest of the crew to react.
2. Or require more planning than pulling the trigger on a gun and thus more chance to rethink one's plan + a chance to recover from that mental health problem as well as higher chance that the rest of the crew will be able to assess the mental health problem and treat it.
At either case, I don't see how _having access_ to a device that can functions as a death switch would not be considered at least a meaningful risk to the space vessel or its crew.
Starting a fire would be easy, not obvious and devastating.
It wouldn't be difficult to have the gun be completely unavailable until landing.
It wouldn't be difficult to have the gun be completely unavailable until landing.
> Starting a fire would be easy, not obvious and devastating.
I'm not sure how starting a fire would be non-obvious but, in general, fire prevention, detection and suppression a risk that space crews are well trained to deal with, regardless of sabotage.
> It wouldn't be difficult to have the gun be completely unavailable until landing.
Agree, but:
1. That is not the case that's described here.
2. My argument was to counter the claim that having access to a gun onboard a spaceship does not significantly increase the overall risk to crew members.
I'm not sure how starting a fire would be non-obvious but, in general, fire prevention, detection and suppression a risk that space crews are well trained to deal with, regardless of sabotage.
> It wouldn't be difficult to have the gun be completely unavailable until landing.
Agree, but:
1. That is not the case that's described here.
2. My argument was to counter the claim that having access to a gun onboard a spaceship does not significantly increase the overall risk to crew members.
You are trying to be reasonable and informed taking with the pro-gun crowd, you deserved to be upvoted.
Actually, they're attempting to force an agenda into a reasonable conversation about a reasonable case of gun use.
But at least, unlike you, they're not being a complete jerk and adding nothing.
But at least, unlike you, they're not being a complete jerk and adding nothing.
Thinking that opening a hatch in space is easy? You cannot do that in a plane.
What is their fair contribution? Bears? In space?
If they read the article there was a suggestion to put the weapon in a place that was not accessible until landing.
What I'm missing?
What is their fair contribution? Bears? In space?
If they read the article there was a suggestion to put the weapon in a place that was not accessible until landing.
What I'm missing?
They're at least on topic and driving relevant conversation
> If an astronaut develops a mental health problem in space, what’s going to stop them from opening the hatch or probably a thousand other things that would result in the deaths of everyone aboard? Guns are just a distraction in this case, or more precisely, removal of guns from this situation doesn’t seem to meaningfully reduce risk
And yet, in countries with higher levels of gun ownership, lethal assault occurrences are higher.
And yet, in countries with higher levels of gun ownership, lethal assault occurrences are higher.
Yes. Guns increase the amount of killings. Too have a gun in a controlled place like a space station was craziness and a catastrophe waiting to happen.
I understand that some people like guns, but their lack of acceptance of the consequences is childish. I guess that so many shootings were kids die have created a cognitive dissonance on many gun owners. They want to see guns as "only for good" meanwhile kids die.
I understand that some people like guns, but their lack of acceptance of the consequences is childish. I guess that so many shootings were kids die have created a cognitive dissonance on many gun owners. They want to see guns as "only for good" meanwhile kids die.
>...in light of recent space team psychological problems...
I saw this reasoning and thought, "OK, what about the survival knife, or potentially lethal pieces of rope, or in fact any small pointy thing like a screwdriver?" Also consider that they are in a fragile environment where a deranged individual could do considerable damage with just bare hands.
I saw this reasoning and thought, "OK, what about the survival knife, or potentially lethal pieces of rope, or in fact any small pointy thing like a screwdriver?" Also consider that they are in a fragile environment where a deranged individual could do considerable damage with just bare hands.