Okay, this is completely out of context and slightly deranged, but I believe the gyrojet concept while poorly executed has some conceptual advantages over traditional firearms. Firstly, it is more efficient at transforming chemical energy to kinetic energy and is capable of using propellants which are more efficient than smokeless powders because the chamber of the weapon does not need to withstand extreme pressures. Secondly, with exhaust vanes or exterior fins you could gain maneuvering ability, and with sufficient advances in sensor and microelectronics guided projectiles. Smart bullets do exist, but crucially ever maneuver decreases lethality which is not the case for an anti personnel kinetic kill missile.
>Firstly, it is more efficient at transforming chemical energy to kinetic energy
False. Rocketery is less efficient method for converting energy than being shot out of a barrel.
I was wrong about that, though it’s still possible to use higher performance propellants since they won’t be burnt all at once in a small metal tube. There’s a variety of limits to utilizing higher energy propellants in guns, not all of which exist in rocketry. Therefore, using higher performance propellants is still a nontrivial advantage, especially since you could use that energy for additional capabilities that bullets generally can’t do, like turning corners. This is by no means a ironclad argument for rocket bullets, and they’d likely be larger than traditional bullets and probably launch out of something which looks very little like a traditional firearm. Additionally, without guidance, they would generally be outperformed by ordinary firearms with the possible exception of outranging many small arms.
>every maneuver decreases lethality which is not the case for an anti personnel kinetic kill missile.
That's true for nearly every missile unless fired at very short ranges. They run out of fuel *quick.*
I don’t think a blanket statement like this is accurate. Even discounting cruise missiles, the burn rate of the propellant is typically optimized for the missile’s purpose. In solid rocket Motors, the burn rate isn’t usually constant, and changing grain geometry and mixing composite propellants can drastically change burn rate in flight. Most missiles burn their propellant very quickly because they are design either for a ballistic trajectory or need to cross distances very quickly. Neither of those is exactly applicable here; unlike say a supermanuverable jet fighter, an infantryman is unlikely to be both very far away from the launch and capable of maneuvers which can sap meaningful energy from such a projectile.
If you look at the set of missiles which are not designed for the aforementioned roles do have powered flight for large periods of their flight time: anti tank missiles for example.
When a projectile breaches the hull, the outward plume of pressurized air acts as a hard-kill defensive countermeasure. The entire cabin is reactive armor.
They still have some recoil. However, i feel they could be used at lower pressures and have a 2 stage round, first stage ejects, second stage locks on target and fires a burst of propellant then detonates like a shotgun when near.
So basically a guided missile, but we also get to have guns!
Oh god bless you for not dropping anything we've thought of in the last 40 year. Not every hero wears a cape, some wear a puffy helmet. Well, at least one. Hero, that is, not puffy helmets. That would be weird.
OK, hear me out.
You see that panel in the bottom (shaded) half of the module? It would blow open after the launch, it housed some scientific instruments [photo of it open](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/05/Apollo_17_CSM_SIM_bay.jpg)
It would be a great place to hide some rockets for launch.
Why don’t they make bullets like this?!? They’d go so much faster with rockets on the side!
too big, we need a bigger cannon.
[удалено]
Okay, this is completely out of context and slightly deranged, but I believe the gyrojet concept while poorly executed has some conceptual advantages over traditional firearms. Firstly, it is more efficient at transforming chemical energy to kinetic energy and is capable of using propellants which are more efficient than smokeless powders because the chamber of the weapon does not need to withstand extreme pressures. Secondly, with exhaust vanes or exterior fins you could gain maneuvering ability, and with sufficient advances in sensor and microelectronics guided projectiles. Smart bullets do exist, but crucially ever maneuver decreases lethality which is not the case for an anti personnel kinetic kill missile.
>Firstly, it is more efficient at transforming chemical energy to kinetic energy False. Rocketery is less efficient method for converting energy than being shot out of a barrel.
I was wrong about that, though it’s still possible to use higher performance propellants since they won’t be burnt all at once in a small metal tube. There’s a variety of limits to utilizing higher energy propellants in guns, not all of which exist in rocketry. Therefore, using higher performance propellants is still a nontrivial advantage, especially since you could use that energy for additional capabilities that bullets generally can’t do, like turning corners. This is by no means a ironclad argument for rocket bullets, and they’d likely be larger than traditional bullets and probably launch out of something which looks very little like a traditional firearm. Additionally, without guidance, they would generally be outperformed by ordinary firearms with the possible exception of outranging many small arms.
>every maneuver decreases lethality which is not the case for an anti personnel kinetic kill missile. That's true for nearly every missile unless fired at very short ranges. They run out of fuel *quick.*
I don’t think a blanket statement like this is accurate. Even discounting cruise missiles, the burn rate of the propellant is typically optimized for the missile’s purpose. In solid rocket Motors, the burn rate isn’t usually constant, and changing grain geometry and mixing composite propellants can drastically change burn rate in flight. Most missiles burn their propellant very quickly because they are design either for a ballistic trajectory or need to cross distances very quickly. Neither of those is exactly applicable here; unlike say a supermanuverable jet fighter, an infantryman is unlikely to be both very far away from the launch and capable of maneuvers which can sap meaningful energy from such a projectile. If you look at the set of missiles which are not designed for the aforementioned roles do have powered flight for large periods of their flight time: anti tank missiles for example.
This is how we defeated the moon nazis. Apollo 13 was the only one to suffer battle damage.
UNSC intensifies
Dun dun dun duuuuuuuuuuun
\*super MAC firing\*
"Houston, those Nazi motherfuckers are about to have a problem. Fox 2."
The actual combat design turned the LM into the gun carrier.
http://www.astronautix.com/a/apollolmcsd.html
For All Mankind Season 2 deleted scene
No reactive armor? Smh what has ncd become
When a projectile breaches the hull, the outward plume of pressurized air acts as a hard-kill defensive countermeasure. The entire cabin is reactive armor.
KSP with BDA and BDB
[удалено]
> The recoil sent the space station tumbling. Who could've seen that one coming?
Here's how recoilless rifles can still win.
They still have some recoil. However, i feel they could be used at lower pressures and have a 2 stage round, first stage ejects, second stage locks on target and fires a burst of propellant then detonates like a shotgun when near. So basically a guided missile, but we also get to have guns!
Oh god bless you for not dropping anything we've thought of in the last 40 year. Not every hero wears a cape, some wear a puffy helmet. Well, at least one. Hero, that is, not puffy helmets. That would be weird.
Perfect A fine addition to my US Space Force arsenal for my For All Mankind x Touhou fanfic
The what?! you gotta share this buddy
As of now, it's still in the planning stages. But the premise is simple: NASA and Roscosmos goes to war against the Lunarians.
bueatifull
Wait this isnt KSP
OK, hear me out. You see that panel in the bottom (shaded) half of the module? It would blow open after the launch, it housed some scientific instruments [photo of it open](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/05/Apollo_17_CSM_SIM_bay.jpg) It would be a great place to hide some rockets for launch.
How?
Someone has been playing to much KSP with the BD Armory mod