The book is about the Russian/American space alliance, and on page 42 he makes an astonishing claim. The Russian space station Salyut 3 was armed with an aircraft cannon. To quote from the passage:
** The most bizarre feature of this vehicle wasn’t it’s spy camera, but it’s short range defense mechanism against a feared American attack. The Soviets had installed a modified jet fighter cannon on the nose of the station, and they actually test fired it in space.**
This is astonishing, I have never seen any mention of weapons aboard a manned spacecraft.
What would be the effects of firing a cannon on a spacecraft?
It was on Salyut 3, and it sure looks like it was a 1940s-era cannon, i.e. a “projectile weapon”. I have no clue how they thought it would work in orbit, or even why they thought that an Apollo spacecraft might attack them (and with what, one wonders)–I suppose we could just chalk it up to a certain naivete about “what it’s like in space”, what with it’s being such early days and all.
I once posted a question here about Weapons on the Space Shuttle that has since gone to the nether regions or was lost in the Great SDMB Hack, not sure.
Figures the russkies would have brought some firepower up there. My original question dealt with contingency on the Shuttle or Space Station with an astronaut who goes completely bonkers. Sure, it’s very unlikely, but it is possible, and I figured they had to have some method of restraint or “something”; probably not widely publicized but it has to be talked about.
But, to shoot down a russian Soyuz, (Salyut?) now that would have been awesome. I’m certain we would have come up with something (maybe we did) to ‘beat the russians’
I once posted a question here about Weapons on the Space Shuttle that has since gone to the nether regions or was lost in the Great SDMB Hack, not sure.
Figures the russkies would have brought some firepower up there. My original question dealt with contingency on the Shuttle or Space Station with an astronaut who goes completely bonkers. Sure, it’s very unlikely, but it is possible, and I figured they had to have some method of restraint or “something”; probably not widely publicized but it has to be talked about.
But, to shoot down a russian Soyuz, (Salyut?) now that would have been awesome. I’m certain we would have come up with something (maybe we did) to ‘beat the russians’
Mark Wade’s page, which deserves to be mentioned along with our own pal, the Bad Astronomer, for spaceborne insanity also notes the following designs, most not launched, in addition to that captured by DDG’s death-to-ignorance-ray:
Zenit
And also not to be forgotten are the MOL and the Dyna-Soar, both which were American military spacecraft designs never built–(tugging collar) that you know of. (Psychos, take note: No, really, they weren’t.) Someone near and dear to me claims that the designs for the MOL were required to account for an additional unspecified “payload” which no doubt would have kept the world safe for democracy, perhaps recorded on Mark’s page as “miscellaneous contingency.”
Don’t want to highjack here, but I am kinda interested. How hard would it be to fly around and disable Russia’s satellites with a spacecraft? Could we do it one mission? Would it take more than a day or two?
One just doesn’t “fly around” in space. You have to calculate and then translate to, intersecting orbits, find the target, engage it, and then move on to the next, calculating and translating and so on. It’d be expensive, time consuming, and fuel-intensive. In short, killing satellites by visiting them isn’t all that easy, although the Soviets gave it strong consideration.
Unmanned devices have been designed that can do this far more cheaply, and it can even be done from within the atmosphere. The ASAT “ALMV” missile, fired from an F-15, was intended for the purpose of killing low-orbit satellites, fer-instance. It had technology problems then, that could likely be easily overcome now, if anyone wished to restart the program.
Another link for info on it. http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/spaceguns/
as an aside, anyone interested in physics or astronomy should take a read at this site. The C-ship in the physics section does a visiual explanation of relitavistic travel thats pretty nifty.
I’m no astrophysicist, but wouldn’t firing a cannon on a spacecraft send the craft hurtling backward just as fast as the projectile was moving forward? Seems to me you’d need to fire thrusters on the rear of the craft at the exact moment you fired in order to avoid careening out of control.
The projectile would give the station a kick of the same momentum, not the same speed. Since the entire station has a mass much greater than that of a single shell, the effects wouldn’t be large.
The beautiful part about firing a projectile weapon in space is that it does slightly change the orbit of the firing platform. That means as soon as the gun is fired, the spacecraft has also changed its trajectory. When the bad guy wants to shoot back, you’re not going to be where he thought you were going to be, unless he knows the weight of the rounds, their muzzle velocity, the exact direction in which they were shot, and how many rounds were fired. It’s automatic fire and movement.
If you continue reading that site, you’ll read that they had an automated attitude jet that fired at the same time as the gun to negate the effects of recoil. Good thing, too, as the gun is mounted off-center, so the main effect of firing would’ve been an instant tumble.
The system was test-fired by remote from the ground while the station was unmanned. It worked fine.
