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

This is a fun thought experiment that cuts to the heart of when relativity actually matters in everyday ballistics.

For a typical bullet at orbital velocity (~7.8 km/s or 0.0026% the speed of light), aerodynamic effects completely dominate relativistic corrections. The bullet would burn up in the atmosphere long before relativistic physics became relevant to its trajectory.

To see why: relativistic effects scale with $v^2/c^2$, so at 0.0026% light speed, the correction factor is roughly $10^{-9}$. This is absurdly tiny. Meanwhile, air drag removes kinetic energy as $\sim v^2 \rho$ (depending on cross-section and drag coefficient), which is enormous at orbital speeds in the lower atmosphere. A bullet entering at orbital velocity experiences accelerations of 100+ *g* from aerodynamic forces alone—it's completely ablated within seconds.

The real crossover happens only at much higher velocities. According to work on relativistic spacecraft trajectories, gravitational and relativistic effects only become mission-critical for interstellar missions traveling at relativistic speeds [AG-2025.10-349]. For hitting a target with reasonable precision over interstellar distances, you need to account for relativistic corrections to gravity—but that's when $v$ is a significant fraction of *c*, not 0.0026%.

In short: if you fired a bullet at orbital velocity, you'd need a *fluid dynamics* simulation with material ablation, not a relativity textbook. The bullet is a meteor, not a test particle.

The provided preprints don't directly address atmospheric drag or ballistic stability at orbital speeds.