/sci/ - Science & Math

>>6741963
Yeah no doubt, so long as the bow and string are made of materials that won't shatter or snap in near absolute zero temperatures.

>>6741963

Absolutely. And the arrows wouldn't even need fletching to keep them going straight.

>>6741973
What are you talking about? The bow wouldn't cool down. Even without new thermal energy from the sun it would take a long time for the bow to cool down.

so if i ever got in to a space fight a bow wouldnt be a bad idea

>>6741978
It would be a terrible idea. In a space fight direct energy weapons and rockets will dominate.

>>6741978
Unless you're up against lasers/other high-energy particles. :P

It should also be noted that guns can be fired in a vacuum as well, at least using modern bullets(primer, powder and projectile all in one sealed cartridge).

>>6741990
wait guns work in space?

>>6741992
Yup, in fact they're more effective in a vacuum, because of the lack of friction with the air. They also work under water, although the friction on the bullet under water is too much, so it'll only go a few feet, point blank would still be lethal though.

>>6741992
Why wouldn't they?
>>6741990
>:P
Underage b& detected.

>>6742002
under 24 maybe, but definitely older than 21. Undergrad would be a more accurate statement, but that'll change soon. The semicolon-capital 'p' was merely to show the comedic intent of that statement, since it should have been obvious that a bow couldn't compete.

Archer here

>>6741974
>>6741999

Wrong. Arrows need the stabilising effects of air resistance to fly straight. Without it they'd spin like a throwing axe.

>>6742012
agree with this poster, look at a slowmo of an arrow firing, they flex like fuck, and I'd imagine the mechanism that makes them track right (?) would be different in space
RCS arrows would be cool af tho

A compound bow might work though, since they're shot straight through rather than around the bow. But to be most sure I'd suggest a crossbow.

>>6742012
That depends entirely on how they leave the bow, if there's angular momentum, then yes you'd be correct, but if not- if all the momentum was perfectly straight(say, if the arrow was guided by a barrel)- then it would travel as such until it bumps into something.
Also, >>6741999 was in regard to a bullet, not an arrow.
>>6742015
The flexing depends on what the arrow's made of and eliminating angular momentum would also help with that by keeping all force in parallel with the arrow (specialized bow?)

>>6742022
somebody pls kerbal space program a bow and arrow

>>6742012
>>6742015
they would still track
but the direction they choose would be hard to affix to the direction on the pull back

The arrow would travel perfectly straight, but the likelihood of you firing it straightly would be very very hard to recreate without more complex mechanical ques.

Also, the arrow will travel in a straight path, but it will not be straight to its path because it lacks resistence to keep it straight
in other words, it could spin in all dimensional axis possibly, horizontal and lateral rotation.

you'd be shooting spinning sticks in near-random direction given a set scope of likely direction.

Archer here

>>6742022
An arrow will always leave a recurve or traditional bow with angular momentum because it is shot around the side of the bow. If you're adding a barrel you are leaving the concept of a bow.

>>6742027
this guy's right.

>>6742027
so you're saying a slingshot would be way better then right?

>>6742030
>If you're adding a barrel you are leaving the concept of a bow.
How so? The arrow would still be propelled as usual, by a bow's drawn string, it would just be guided for a short distance thereafter.

>>6742022

a crossbow is the answer?

>>6741977
The string has very low thermal inertia and a lot of surface area. It'll cool off faster than you'd think.

>>6742035

forgot pic related

>>6742034
Well for a start it wouldn't work very well. Arrows bend a lot when you shoot them and would get pretty fucked up by the barrel.

If you change things around and make the guiding barrel/rail work properly then you end up with a crossbow.

>>6741978
You'd have a velocity disadvantage, which would make hitting moving targets significantly more difficult.

Also, good luck trying to shoot straight when the arrows keeps floating off where it's supposed to rest.

>>6742032
My vote goes to a gun, only second to a high-energy particle emission device that doesn't exist to us in any feasible/portable form.
>>6742035
Sure, I suppose.
>>6742040
The flexing of the arrow can be countered or eliminated in a number of ways. A crossbow is still a bow, just tailored to the unskilled (or challenging environments)

>>6742032
actually yes
only because the spin of a rock is not relevant in the purpose of the mechanic, to propel a rock forward is simple, and trajectory goes unaltered because there is no elongated mass that requires a balance of force between its tip and its base during release.
it moves perfectly away from the direction you pull the sling when released.

I guess the best way to put it is that attenuation in the string alter the arrows course until it resonates with the system to give it an appeared specific direction.
Factoring attenuation in the string is likely hard but not impossible.

a crossbow, on the other hand, might work much better if it is tuned proportionally and the guides are resistance neutral (since resistance free is impossible)

>>6742051
A crossbow is not a bow. Crossbows shoot bolts, not arrows.

>>6742012
They only need to stabilize themselves because of turbulence in the air; what allows them to stabilize is the same thing that requires them to stabilize.
Decrease the fluctuations in pressure around them and it decreases both the ability to self correct and the need too. Although, seeing as the relationship most certainly isn't perfectly linear and I have no idea what I'm talking about it could still get fucked up.

>>6742059
I feel like finding a way to put the center of mass behind the center of thrust relative to the vector that you're trying to launch it on would be most of the stabilization you'd need

>>6742051
guns over long distances would have ill accuracy given the explosive orientation of gasses leaving the barrel.

a tuned railgun maybe, no gass involved.
it would have to be tuned against the rails with the factors of it's own mass and the friction coefficient to deliver a visibly 'straight' shot.

>>6742035
yes but the system is still not perfect, string attenuation is less of an issue but it is still an issue, especially when it's compounded with resistant variables in the slide.

it might 'bounce' like a rock on water over and over before finding where it wants to go.

Archer here
>>6742059
Wrong. Arrows need to stabilise themselves because a bow will not impart kinetic energy to it perfectly exactly forwards. Plus, the arrow bends.

Yes, actually. They might certain advantages over regular firearms, as they produce no heat when firing.

Actually a crossbow still won't work. There is no way you can possibly get all of the force in the arrow to be directly forwards. In a zero gravity zero air resistance environment, the arrow will always spin on its axis. Maybe slowly, but still it will spin.

>>6742063
consider using electromagnets as a scope instead of material mechanics?

it would self-fix directional issue by placing all of the disorienting forces into the arrow itself

for example, instead of a spinning arrow going non-straight, you'd have a vibrating arrow going perfectly straight, assuming you have energy at your disposal.

If you are intent on using an elastic force to propel a projectile in space, your best bet is a slingshot or some kind of crossbow that fires balls

consider the following scenario:

you launch your arrow accidentally before having time to prime it's direction
what happens? a failed shot. the stick ungracefully flies sideways and lands a few metres infront of you on the ground.

Now do this in space? the arrow won't plumet, there's nothing there to stop its motion, what does it do? it spins off to your right IF you can move the bow out of its path as soon as you launch it.

In an extreme scenario, you could fire an arrow so deficiently that it does not travel forward at all, it simply spins very very quickly on its own vertical horizontal axis.

I'm lying, of course it would move forward. Slowly. but can anyone tell me why?

>>6742057
A "bolt" is essentially an arrow with the fletching.. in space, the fletching is irrelevant, because there's no gas to interact with. The mechanics are fundamentally the same, a drawn string creates tension, which is then released and transferred into the arrow/bolt as momentum. A crossbow is just a fancy, easy to use, bow.

>>6741963
I actually forgot to answer your question in my earlier post. You have to specify the hypothetical situation for a correct answer but in any realistic scenario the answer will be: NO.

>>6742037
> It'll cool off faster than you'd think.
What is this supposed to mean?
The bow won't cool down significantly during a battle of several hours. This is just a guess though, however to prove me wrong you have to actually give me a good reason in form of a calculated approximation or something of similar credibility.

I also don't see how surface area matters that much. More heat lost but at the same time more heat gained from the sun and other radiation.

>>6742035
A crossbow would reduce the issues of a bow but not remove them. The projectile could still turn around.
>>6742038
Ohhh thanks. I didn't know how a crossbow looks like. This image with the bad depiction of half a crossbow sure helped though, totally worth the extra post!

>>6742051
>My vote goes to a gun
Are you sure you're an undergrad?


Again: Any realistic scenario will have directed-energy weapons or missiles. Everything else is too slow and too weak. Keep in mind that in space you will detect your targets at very long distances, as well as approaching projectiles. DEW will have perfect accuracy and can cause more than enough damage to destroy space ships, for example through surface ionisation to destroy electronics. Missiles have constant acceleration and therefore can greatly surpass the speed of e.g. railgun, an other major advantage of missiles is that they are not LOS. If the enemy hides behind debris, a meteor or whatever, you will still be able to hit them. The explosive payload will also cause much more damage than any projectile relying only on kinetic energy ever could.

>do springs work in the vacuum of space?
>does Elastic Potential Energy work in the vacuum of space?

>>6742108
A crossbow isn't a bow in the same way that a desktop PC isn't a CPU.

>>6741963
Effective for what?
Killing the white folk?
If they aren't using any protective gear that'd be effective in stopping an arrow and they had no means of getting away from it like some sort of propulsion system or if you were close enough, you might be able to say that it'd be somewhat effective? Or just use your lightsaber :^)

>>6742116
read the thread

we're not determining the fact that forces do operate
we're assessing the difference in accuracy and orientation of the bolt in space vs our atmosphere

if you read the thread, you'll learn that the bow and arrow hardly works in space without a great deal of extra tuning. you could shoot at something for an hour and never penetrate it even if you hit it because the bolt might spin post-release.

>>6742112
>Any realistic scenario will have directed-energy weapons or missiles. Everything else is too slow and too weak.

Why exactly do people jump into the topic of vacuum weaponry actualisation just because somebody posts a theoretical question wherein the mechanics of a weapon are the subject. That doesn't mean the mechanics of Weapons are the subject, the mechanics of force distribution and its study are the focus.

OP is not planning a deer hunt in space, we're just trying to decipher causal affects between different atmospheric conditions.

go draw space missiles and 'hyperbeams' your own time

>>6742112
>>My vote goes to a gun
Context is everything, and without it, yeah, that claim makes little sense. In terms of weaponry readily available to the average individual, what would be a more feasible option? For me, at least at this point in time, a gun would be my go-to. Would it be effective against a vessel at a long range? No, of course not. Would it be better than a slingshot? Absolutely.

>>6742123
That's a terrible comparison, but please, do explain how the mechanics of a crossbow are fundamentally different than those of a bow, especially in terms of transference of energy.

>>6742132
>Why exactly do people jump into the topic of vacuum weaponry actualisation just because somebody posts a theoretical question wherein the mechanics of a weapon are the subject.
OP asks about effectiveness, which is clearly related to mechanics of weapons.
>'hyperbeams'
This idiotic statement suggests that you're a dipshitter.

>>6742123
/g/ can't mechanical analogy

>>6742141
>Context is everything, and without it, yeah, that claim makes little sense.
I want to apologize for my earlier ad hominem, I had a wrong impression of you.

>>6742144
Rereading this and I noticed something.

>mechanics of weapons
should be functionality of weapons.
>>6742132
>just because somebody posts a theoretical question wherein the mechanics of a weapon are the subject. That doesn't mean the mechanics of Weapons are the subject
Contradiction.

>>6742132
so 42 post to establish the bow would work but not the arrow.

>>6742141
The concepts of a crossbow and a bow are not defined by their mechanics or anything to do with energy transfer. Here's some definitions for ya (dictionary.com)

Bow
a weapon for shooting arrows, consisting of an arch of flexible wood, plastic, metal, etc bent by a string ( bowstring) fastened at each end

a flexible strip of wood or other material, bent by a string stretched between its ends, for shooting arrows:

Crossbow
a medieval weapon consisting of a bow fixed transversely on a stock having a trigger mechanism to release the bowstring, and often incorporating or accompanied by a mechanism for bending the bow.

A crossbow isn't a bow. It is a weapon consisting of a bow and some other shit.

>>6742149
It's alright, no offense taken. This is the internet, everything is very impersonal, so yeah that sort of thing tends to happen.

>>6742155
A bow is a thing for firing arrows, I don't think the bow could be said to be effective/to "work" if the arrows don't fly the way you wanted them to.

>>6742162
*shooting not firing FUCK

>>6742162
>It could also be used to play a violin. Equally redundant in space.

The bow my be ineffective but it still served it function by treasuring energy to arrow.

>>6742168
*transferring
my proof reading is redundant tonight, I apologies.

>>6742157
That's not the point I was trying to make and that response was blatantly side-stepping what I had just said. In regard to the purpose of this thread, a bow and a crossbow function in a such a similar manner that they can be considered one of the same, your inability to elaborate otherwise substantiates that.
In any case, because something had some bits added to it, including a trigger mechanism, it's suddenly something entirely different? I don't think so, it may justify different terminology, but mechanically, they are pretty much the same. A machine by any other name...

>>6742168
The function of a bow is not to transfer energy to an arrow.
The function of a bow is to project an arrow at something with the intention of hitting that thing with the point of the arrow.

>>6742153
I can not believe that you actually think that that's a contradiction.
There are two subjects. Mechanics, Weapons.
Weapons preside within mechanical figures
Understand the mechanics, you understand weapons.
Understand weapons, you do not understand mechanics
They might be analogues, but one takes precedent over the other.

But I guess this thread really is about shooting people in space, instead of understanding physics. That's cool, lets post more popsci theoretical bullshit instead of understanding physics.

>>6742155

/sci/

do you really think missile operation and energy weapons are some cheat anyone can suggest as superior modes of weaponry?

what if I told you understanding the mechanics of the bow and arrow in space are actually vital in establishing the effectiveness of other physical projectiles like missiles?

and then there are energy weapons... hmm, make one.

>>6742175
>In regard to the purpose of this thread, a bow and a crossbow function in a such a similar manner that they can be considered one of the same.

sorry mate but I have to side with >>6742157

they are completely different weapons, and they have completely different behaviours in a vacuum if being fired by a human being.

>>6742175
They are the same in that a narrow projectile is propelled via bending wood(or whatever material) with a string. Different in every other way.

If someone asked if a revolver works in x situation would you say a sniper rifle? They work on the same basic mechanics of a bullet propelled with gunpowder, so they are basically the same thing right?

No. They are different weapons with different behaviours and properties.

>>6742178
>>6742178
>The function of a bow is to project an arrow at something with the intention of hitting that thing with the point of the arrow.
How does that make the function of a bow any less than that of transferring energy to the arrow? That's the main function of the bow. Where the arrow goes depends upon the user's skill, and in our current atmosphere, the aerodynamics of the arrow.
>>6742186
>they are completely different weapons, and they have completely different behaviours in a vacuum if being fired by a human being.
Please, do elaborate, assuming the human has some experience in archery.

>>6742180
>I can not believe that you actually think that that's a contradiction.
Suggestion that you're a dipshitter further validated.
>mechanics of a weapon are the subject doesn't mean the mechanics of Weapons are the subjec
>x doesn't mean x
You fail at basic logic.

>>6742140
You're a shitposter too.

>implying that your assumptions are any more science based than my assumptions
Your earlier idiotic statement (>'hyperbeams') in combination with your current idiocy shows how clueless you are about the things you talk right now.

Fuck off with your dipshitting.

>>6742191
>They are the same in that a narrow projectile is propelled via bending wood(or whatever material) with a string.
So mechanically, in regard to their basic function, they are identical? That was the entirety of my point.

>>6742191
>If someone asked if a revolver works in x situation would you say a sniper rifle?
I would reply with either a positive or negative acknowledgement, possibly followed by an explanation.. to answer a yes/no question with "a sniper rifle" is just nonsense.

>>6742205
hurr

OP: Would a pistol work at very long distances?
You: yes just make the barrel longer and make the bullet bigger, with more gunpowder, oh and you'll want a stock to help keep it steady and absorb the shock, oh and a scope too.
Anon: That's not a pistol, thats a rifle
You: well mechanically in regard to their basic function they are identical!!!!

>>6742180
>and then there are energy weapons... hmm, make one.
Already made long ago and already deplodyed by military. With all your big talk about physics I expected you to know about LASERs. Big mouth and nothing behind it.

Crossbows for starters firers blots not arrows.

The theory of their functions are similar.

>>6742205
Also your original point was that "a crossbow is still a bow". A crossbow is not a bow any more than a sniper rifle is still a pistol.

Maybe wiki can restore peace over the War of the Bows.

With a crossbow, archers could release a draw force far in excess of what they could have handled with a bow. Furthermore the crossbow could hold the tension for a long time, whereas even the strongest longbowman could only hold a drawn bow for so long. The disadvantage is the greater weight and clumsiness compared to a bow, as well as the slower rate of shooting and the lower efficiency of the acceleration system, but there would be reduced elastic hysteresis, making the crossbow a more accurate weapon.

Crossbows have a much smaller draw length than bows. This means that for the same energy to be imparted to the arrow (or bolt), the crossbow has to have a much higher draw weight.

A direct comparison between a fast hand-drawn replica crossbow and a longbow show a 6:10 rate of shooting[59] or a 4:9 rate within 30 seconds and comparable weapons

>>6741963
effective, no.
no doubt you could get an arrow launched in the general direction of your target, but without air and aerodynamics the arrow's arrival point first thus it's effectiveness is very doubtful

>>6741963
THREAD TL;DR:
A bow and arrows will not be effective in space. The arrows will spin, not flying point-first.
You might have better luck with a crossbow instead of a bow, but still it's unlikely that the arrow/bolt would be shot so perfectly as to not spin.
Slingshot with round projectiles would work.

Almaz space station had a canon

Eh, you'd need a tube to shoot the payload from.

The microgravity would make crossbows equally shitty, because they might not rest well in a trough for guidance.

>>6741963
>Be in space.
>Shoot arrow with bow.
>Arrow flies off into the black distance.
>No longer have arrow.
>No longer have anything to make more arrows out of.

>Be in space
>Fire arrow forward
>Launch yourself backward

will it retain the speed in which it exists the bow? If so can you break the world record bow shooting easilier in space?

>>6742707

Yeah I guess

No air resistance on the string, no air resistance on the arrow

mite b cool

>>6742007
mmm analysis nice

Only if you are in a stasi field, while fighting Taurans.