/sci/ - Science & Math

>/sci/ - Literature

>>3322799

It takes time. You can actually calculate how long based on the volume of air in the room, and all rooms connected to it, as it would pull from anywhere not sealed off.

The wind from this would pull anyone in the room towards the opening at a great speed, you could hold on, but the bigger the opening, the faster the escape of air, the stronger the pull. If you do get pulled right up to the hole, likely you'd be ripped apart by the pressure if the hull didn't buckle to let you through.

If you are talking chemical projectile weapons, guns can't fire in a vacuum. You need air for the explosion from the power to fire a bullet.

And air speed does effect bullets, so hitting anything in a room with this shit happening would be a matter of luck. It would deviate a lot, but it is not strong enough to pull a bullet completely out of trajectory. Imagine the shot hitting somewhere in a cone around the line of it's initial path, but not pulled 90 degrees toward the hole.

>windows on a spacecraft

why.jpeg

>>3322837
Aesthetics.

Wouldn't the gas laws apply? Correct me if I'm wrong.

>>3322837

If there's no windowed spacecraft in the future then just kill me now

>>3322857

Hologram cameras on the outside, and projections on the inner walls.

Much MUCH safer than making windows out of anything but diamond.

>>3322857
Can we just kill you now and reimburse you in the future?

>>3322881
>diamond windows

Enjoy being roasted in cosmic radiation.

>>3322888

That too.

Back to hologram cameras.

>>3322822

OP here; I mean they'll have a shootout as air is escaping. There'd still be air in the room, but it'll be leaving the spacecraft.

How do I calculate how fast air would escape? I have the volume of air in the room at 179.2kg (146.25m^3 room), and the hole in the window at 70m*10m. Temperature indoors would be 15C, and in space whatever the temperature of space is.

The lightsaber in the OP's pic should be purple.

>>3322822
>If you are talking chemical projectile weapons, guns can't fire in a vacuum. You need air for the explosion from the power to fire a bullet.
No. The oxygen present in the propellant (usually a nitrate) is used in the reaction, not the atmospheric oxygen around it. You can fire a gun in space just fine.

>>3322914
...you have a 700m^2 window alongside a 146 m^3 room? That would make the room 0.2m wide

>>3322934

Sorry, I meant 22x10m hole (70' x 10m). The room dimensions are 90m*45m*11.25m.

>>3322951

Yeah, sorry my measurements are all wrong; I only had the dimensions of the room, not the volume. I pressed + in my calculator instead of *.

Room volume = 45562.5m^3
Air volume = 55823.6kg

>>3322958

>implying kg is a measure of volumetric mass and not of weight

>ctrl+f "rho"
>nothing
shame /sci/

http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/

>>3322967

>>3322958
Well, the pressure difference is what is providing the force pushing the air out, but the pressure difference will drop as the air escapes. So the rate of change of the Air Pressure is dependent upon the current Air Pressure. My best approximation would be using the current air pressure in the room and assuming zero pressure on the opposite side of the window, then multiplying it by the area of the window to give you the initial force and working through some calculus to get a function similar to P(t) = C*e^(-r*t), but my memory is failing me horribly on the details.

>>3322822
All of this is wrong.

With a non liquified gas source, it would be gone before an appreciable length of time because of how fast gas molecules travel. Also any spacecraft comparable in size to todays spacecraft wouldn hold very little air.

The wind would not pull you at great speed, depending on your position relative to the hole, it could give you a slight push towards the hole or push you against the wall as air rushes by in front of you. The density of air is approximately 1.3 kg/m^3, not enough mass in the air and not enough air to give you a good push.

Explosives like gun powder and modern smokeless gun powder will work regardless of the presence of oxygen.

The bullet would be across the entire length of any realistic spacecraft before the air had any appreciable effect on it.

>>3323046

>>3323046
>15psi
>not an appreciable amount of force
okay buddy

Effectively the window will behave like a nozzle, and flow will become choked, i.e. there is a maximum mass flow rate out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choked_flow

>>3323072
You will only feel the pressure differential between your back and front, and unless you are standing in front of the hole, it will not be that much. Also like I said, the air will be gone too fast; there wouldn't be an appreciable amount of air to give you a good impulse.

>>3322799
>1) Is something like this instantaneous?
Nearly so. Several seconds at the most. Depends on the size of the hole and the volume of the module.
>Would the rounds be affected by the air escaping from the room?
No. Not to any noticeable degree at the ranges you mentioned. A few arcminutes at most.
>Could a human realistically grab onto say, a pole bolted to the floor, and hold on hard enough to not be ejected from a spacecraft with a hole in the wall?
Odds are they won't be sucked out at all unless they are RIGHT in front of the hole. If they ARE, then yes, holding on could prevent them from being ejected, provided they remain conscious long enough.

Note that decompression in less than half a second (from a full atmosphere, that is) or so will almost inevitably cause severe barotrauma to the lungs. Slower decompression may not, but still will if the person is holding their breath.

>>3322822
>>3322924
>MFW /sci/ is just as dumb as /k/
Fuck this shit, I'm going back.

WHOS BEEN TO SPACE? NICE TO MEET YOU. welcome to /sci/.