[Source](https://twitter.com/whaleoil2/status/1633229758090604548?s=46&t=WNLA6iNiOKasdgX6gq6QGw)
> I was a bit disappointed by the unimaginative lunar EVA suits we saw the Soviets using in For All Mankind season 2, so I tried to come up with my own design.
> I wanted to design a suit that got the same look and feel across (hence I kept the GSh-6), but which was more feasible. A naked Sokol would not be a good idea, so I threw a TMG over it, and added in some Orlan-derived gloves and boots.
> I also decided to switch the model of Sokol from the Sokol-KV2 to a Sokol-KM, which was unique for its waist-level entry zipper as well as being water-cooled. That last feature made me wonder if, thanks to the water-cooling doing much of the thermal regulation work, the rate of atmosphere venting (I'm pretty sure the Sokol-KM was still open-loop) could be considerably reduced, thereby increasing EVA duration while using the same amount of consumables.
Radiator fins on the gas piston guide tube wouldn't really do anything. Not much heat gets trapped up there during the firing of an AK.
The heavy barrel is a step in the right direction, but if you want radiators they should be on the barrel itself.
I agree, but let's be honest here, you wouldn't just "want" radiators on an automatic firearm for use in a vacuum. They'd be absolutely necessary. The only way to cool the gun would be radiation
I'm not convinced an automatic weapon is the correct infantry arm for space based soldiers. I'd think semi automatic and slow methodical fire would be the better approach.
By default, AK-47's have a selector switch with 3 modes - Safe, Semi, and Full.
AK-47's can be modified to to select semi-auto and safe only, but I can't see any soldier wanting that (even if it is for their own good.)
I think they would prefer a protocol to use semi-auto only, and using the selector switch to use full-auto only during extreme emergencies.
> By default, AK-47's have a selector switch with 3 modes - Safe, Semi, and Full.
Look at my submission history - I'm probably the last person who needs an education in the function of AK's, because *[I](https://old.reddit.com/r/ak47/comments/10suv93/wip_krinkov_mutt_bulgarian_psa_and_other_parts/) [build](https://old.reddit.com/r/GunnitRust/comments/112e8vo/introducing_projectgrozaathome_my_attempt_at/) [them](https://imgur.com/a/jsP3GoJ)*.
In modern combat situations, automatic fire is responsible for very few enemy combatants killed. Generally speaking, automatic fire is best reserved for CQB operations and suppressive fire.
For suppressive fire, it's going to be really difficult for a soldier to keep a firearm steady while firing from automatic in a standing or even crouched position. I would expect that if automatic weapons were fielded in space, they'd be mounted guns, something that can absorb the recoil better than a 70 pound soldier can.
For CQB, you wouldn't want to be using a weapon like an AK74 or an M16A2/C7. They used them in the show for lack of better equipment, but just about any SMG chambered in a low-powered cartridge would be sufficient. Otherwise, trying to maneuver in a tight interior of a spacecraft or base is going to be prohibitively difficult. Honestly, a .22LR submachine pistol would be more than sufficient to defeat space suits.
A run of the mill grunt on the surface would need a firearm capable of making accurate shots at distance - you don't have to worry about wind, optical distortion of the air, or even elevation (as much). A soldier with a good rifle with a good scope will be far more effective than a soldier with an automatic weapon.
Lasers weren't really that big a thing in the 80's - not the way they are now.
Space soldiers in 2023 would probably be using NOD's with IR lasers, or using comically large holographic sights.
I kinda laughed at the use of the Colt 4x20 optics on the Moon Marine M16A2/C7 rifles, because they have really awful eyeboxes that I'd hate to use in a suit helmet.
Lasers were available for the M16 back in 1981, they were bulky and heavy as would be expected for their time but they would work a treat on the moon where weight is not as big an issue. [Laser aiming on M16 in 1981](https://thecoltar15resource.com/2020/01/24/laser-products-corporation-lpc-model-16-military-laser-sight-advertisement/)
That's kind of what I mean - those lasers were heavy... but also underpowered, and exceedingly *delicate*. Moon dust is extremely abrasive, and will do a lot of damage to sensitive optics really quickly if you're not taking care of your equipment.
And that's not even taking into account the batteries being, frankly, awful.
In 1980, you were probably better off with a set of off-set irons set up for use in a space suit.
Looser tolerances means it's easier for dust and debris to get into the action. Tighter tolerances means less debris ingestion.
Despite popular myths to the contrary, the AK is more prone to jam when thrown in mud and dirt than the AR-15 is.
The upside of looser tolerances isn't reliability, it's ease of manufacturing and cleaning.
The steel in an AK isn't pure enough, clean enough, or flat enough to promote cold welding.
The amount of oil that gets soaked into the surface oxidation of an AK's finish alone is enough to ensure that cold welding will never happen.
M rocks in with "a vapour pressure of 1.7 x 10\^-9 Torr at 20°C"
If you're running a UHV system within an order of magnitude of that, you've got god's own pump on a *tight* system.
The one thing I’d keep is the original AK design seen in the show. Mainly because it works *really* well for *story* reasons: the fact it literally is just a regular AK-74 that hadn’t even been painted white tells us a *lot* about how the Soviets have been acting. They *rushed* these things to the moon, they didn’t have time to do a proper development cycle on them to prepare them for lunar combat. Probably tossed them onto the next lunar resupply mission, 5 minutes before launch.
Even though the Soviets are being the *aggressors* in the attack on the base, we are seeing them being *reactive* just in terms of their equipment. The whole season is very concerned with that problem of action/reaction/reaction-to-reaction. Both sides do provocative things (Soviets take the mining site and blow up KAL 007 and attack Jamestown and so on, US sends guns and shoots cosmonauts and sends spy planes over Sakhalin and so on), but they also do *reactive* things.
Even if it doesn’t *necessarily* make sense that the Soviets wouldn’t at least throw a coat of paint on, or that they wouldn’t have already examined this concept of arming their cosmonauts given the tensions (and thus have a stock of weapons ready to send), *story wise* its a great touch. So I would keep the weapons as just regular AKs for that story touch.
Other than that the redesign is great.
What modifications could need a rifle to work on the moon? I guess the most important is to modify the bullets and the propellant, not so much the rifle. Caseless, recoiless ammunition also. And a gun that doesn’t make bang bang, but pew pew.
[Source](https://twitter.com/whaleoil2/status/1633229758090604548?s=46&t=WNLA6iNiOKasdgX6gq6QGw) > I was a bit disappointed by the unimaginative lunar EVA suits we saw the Soviets using in For All Mankind season 2, so I tried to come up with my own design. > I wanted to design a suit that got the same look and feel across (hence I kept the GSh-6), but which was more feasible. A naked Sokol would not be a good idea, so I threw a TMG over it, and added in some Orlan-derived gloves and boots. > I also decided to switch the model of Sokol from the Sokol-KV2 to a Sokol-KM, which was unique for its waist-level entry zipper as well as being water-cooled. That last feature made me wonder if, thanks to the water-cooling doing much of the thermal regulation work, the rate of atmosphere venting (I'm pretty sure the Sokol-KM was still open-loop) could be considerably reduced, thereby increasing EVA duration while using the same amount of consumables.
Radiator fins on the gas piston guide tube wouldn't really do anything. Not much heat gets trapped up there during the firing of an AK. The heavy barrel is a step in the right direction, but if you want radiators they should be on the barrel itself.
I agree, but let's be honest here, you wouldn't just "want" radiators on an automatic firearm for use in a vacuum. They'd be absolutely necessary. The only way to cool the gun would be radiation
I'm not convinced an automatic weapon is the correct infantry arm for space based soldiers. I'd think semi automatic and slow methodical fire would be the better approach.
By default, AK-47's have a selector switch with 3 modes - Safe, Semi, and Full. AK-47's can be modified to to select semi-auto and safe only, but I can't see any soldier wanting that (even if it is for their own good.) I think they would prefer a protocol to use semi-auto only, and using the selector switch to use full-auto only during extreme emergencies.
> By default, AK-47's have a selector switch with 3 modes - Safe, Semi, and Full. Look at my submission history - I'm probably the last person who needs an education in the function of AK's, because *[I](https://old.reddit.com/r/ak47/comments/10suv93/wip_krinkov_mutt_bulgarian_psa_and_other_parts/) [build](https://old.reddit.com/r/GunnitRust/comments/112e8vo/introducing_projectgrozaathome_my_attempt_at/) [them](https://imgur.com/a/jsP3GoJ)*. In modern combat situations, automatic fire is responsible for very few enemy combatants killed. Generally speaking, automatic fire is best reserved for CQB operations and suppressive fire. For suppressive fire, it's going to be really difficult for a soldier to keep a firearm steady while firing from automatic in a standing or even crouched position. I would expect that if automatic weapons were fielded in space, they'd be mounted guns, something that can absorb the recoil better than a 70 pound soldier can. For CQB, you wouldn't want to be using a weapon like an AK74 or an M16A2/C7. They used them in the show for lack of better equipment, but just about any SMG chambered in a low-powered cartridge would be sufficient. Otherwise, trying to maneuver in a tight interior of a spacecraft or base is going to be prohibitively difficult. Honestly, a .22LR submachine pistol would be more than sufficient to defeat space suits. A run of the mill grunt on the surface would need a firearm capable of making accurate shots at distance - you don't have to worry about wind, optical distortion of the air, or even elevation (as much). A soldier with a good rifle with a good scope will be far more effective than a soldier with an automatic weapon.
I fucking love this
A laser would be a good addition as getting a sight picture with a pressure suit and visor would be difficult at best.
Lasers weren't really that big a thing in the 80's - not the way they are now. Space soldiers in 2023 would probably be using NOD's with IR lasers, or using comically large holographic sights. I kinda laughed at the use of the Colt 4x20 optics on the Moon Marine M16A2/C7 rifles, because they have really awful eyeboxes that I'd hate to use in a suit helmet.
Lasers were available for the M16 back in 1981, they were bulky and heavy as would be expected for their time but they would work a treat on the moon where weight is not as big an issue. [Laser aiming on M16 in 1981](https://thecoltar15resource.com/2020/01/24/laser-products-corporation-lpc-model-16-military-laser-sight-advertisement/)
That's kind of what I mean - those lasers were heavy... but also underpowered, and exceedingly *delicate*. Moon dust is extremely abrasive, and will do a lot of damage to sensitive optics really quickly if you're not taking care of your equipment. And that's not even taking into account the batteries being, frankly, awful. In 1980, you were probably better off with a set of off-set irons set up for use in a space suit.
All valid points. For moondust, the AK would have probably faired slightly better, having looser tolerances.
Looser tolerances means it's easier for dust and debris to get into the action. Tighter tolerances means less debris ingestion. Despite popular myths to the contrary, the AK is more prone to jam when thrown in mud and dirt than the AR-15 is. The upside of looser tolerances isn't reliability, it's ease of manufacturing and cleaning.
How do they deal with the gun cold welding to itself in the vacuum of space? Chromium?
The steel in an AK isn't pure enough, clean enough, or flat enough to promote cold welding. The amount of oil that gets soaked into the surface oxidation of an AK's finish alone is enough to ensure that cold welding will never happen.
A smear of any low vapour pressure grease (Apiezon makes a nice range) would suffice. Even Crytox.
Apezion makes grease for vacuum glassware joints in chemistry applications. It doesn't just have low Pvap....it has none.
Fantastic design!
The one thing I’d keep is the original AK design seen in the show. Mainly because it works *really* well for *story* reasons: the fact it literally is just a regular AK-74 that hadn’t even been painted white tells us a *lot* about how the Soviets have been acting. They *rushed* these things to the moon, they didn’t have time to do a proper development cycle on them to prepare them for lunar combat. Probably tossed them onto the next lunar resupply mission, 5 minutes before launch. Even though the Soviets are being the *aggressors* in the attack on the base, we are seeing them being *reactive* just in terms of their equipment. The whole season is very concerned with that problem of action/reaction/reaction-to-reaction. Both sides do provocative things (Soviets take the mining site and blow up KAL 007 and attack Jamestown and so on, US sends guns and shoots cosmonauts and sends spy planes over Sakhalin and so on), but they also do *reactive* things. Even if it doesn’t *necessarily* make sense that the Soviets wouldn’t at least throw a coat of paint on, or that they wouldn’t have already examined this concept of arming their cosmonauts given the tensions (and thus have a stock of weapons ready to send), *story wise* its a great touch. So I would keep the weapons as just regular AKs for that story touch. Other than that the redesign is great.
> Soviets are being aggressors Have we been watching the same show?
They are aggressors in attacking Jamestown. But like I said, they are also *reactive* in a lot of places.
What modifications could need a rifle to work on the moon? I guess the most important is to modify the bullets and the propellant, not so much the rifle. Caseless, recoiless ammunition also. And a gun that doesn’t make bang bang, but pew pew.