404_Gordon_Not_Found t1_j4ivkwy wrote

You definitely would feel the backward acceleration of both the gun and you moving backward. This is exactly because you and the gun aren't one single rigid entity. If you have watched any slow-mo gun firing footage you will see the gun moves first after a bullet is fired, then the shooter's arm starts moving a short while after. The same thing would happen in space.


404_Gordon_Not_Found t1_j4itnjy wrote

The recoil suppression system doesn't eliminate recoil (only tiny amount of energy lost as friction, etc), rather it spreads the recoil over a longer time and redirect the force downwards.

Therefore the gun would act as thrusters just like any other guns.

If you would like a more mathematical/physical way of thinking this, try the conservation of momentum. When a shooter is holding a gun in space no moving, there's no momentum. As the bullet is fired it gains momentum. Since the recoil suppression system is part of the gun, naturally the gun and the shooter would be imparted with an equal but opposite momentum.

Lastly, tell your friends that recoil suppression system is 'supression' not 'elimination', the shooter can very clearly feel the recoil.


404_Gordon_Not_Found t1_j25bko4 wrote

That's entirely ignoring the cost and difficulty of setting up, running and maintaining a large industry on the moon. Even your base premise is wrong, the most expensive part of a rocket isn't the fuel, it's the rocket itself, that's why reusable rockets are the trend now.

Let's illustrate how unnecessary it is to refuel on the moon, then go to another place like for example, Mars.

It takes similar amount of fuel to go to Mars compared to the moon. What you are suggesting is that instead of launching and refueling from Earth, then head to Mars, we should:

  1. Launch all the machines and equipments needed for a mining and refinery facility on the moon.

  2. Assemble, run and maintain said facility with materials from Earth, because the moon doesn't have all resources needed to be self sustaining.

  3. Launch a rocket all the way to the moon, land, refuel and take off again towards destination, in this case Mars.

There's all disadvantages and no advantage to what you suggested, it's like taking a massive detour to build a new gas station in the middle of nowhere just so you can continue on a trip, instead of going to the gas station nearest to you. I simply cannot see the value in setting up moon as a gas station of space, not with current and near future technology.


404_Gordon_Not_Found t1_ixamw7j wrote

As far as manned lunar program goes America is the only one in the game, next is China. EU being a partner with the US and potentially China also means they will follow right behind the leaders. Russia has talked about a moon program but considering their situation rn I take it with a massive pile of salt.

Apart from that, Japan is on Artemis as well.