What if you fired a bullet at orbital velocity—would relativistic corrections matter more than aerodynamic ones?

This is a fun question, but the provided preprints don't really address the competition between relativistic and aerodynamic effects on a ballistic projectile.

That said, let me sketch the physics: at typical bullet speeds (~1 km/s or 0.0003% light speed), aerodynamic drag dominates utterly; relativistic corrections are completely negligible.

Here's the rough scale. Relativistic corrections to motion enter at order $(v/c)^2$ [AG-2024.04-291]. For a rifle bullet, $(v/c)^2 \sim 10^{-12}$—essentially zero. Air resistance, by contrast, causes deceleration that degrades the trajectory over meters to kilometers, a *macroscopic* effect.

You'd need the bullet to travel at something like 0.1% the speed of light (~30,000 km/s) for relativistic terms to become comparable to Newtonian gravity. At those energies, the bullet would vaporize the atmosphere and probably the planet. The real question becomes academic: relativistic mechanics would matter more, yes, but only after aerodynamics has already ceased to be a meaningful concept.

For *interstellar* spacecraft at truly relativistic speeds (significant fractions of $c$), the hierarchy flips—aerodynamics vanishes, and relativistic gravitational effects [AG-2025.10-349] and frame-dependent subtleties of relative motion [AG-2024.11-416] become crucial.