PDA

View Full Version : Explosions in space. Armageddon


lds
02-May-2003, 06:23 PM
You said the photo of the shuttle exploding snagged from Armageddon was "real enough." I read your review of The A-Team in Outer Space (as I retitled the film) and I found a glaring omission of one of my major peeves. That is, you don't get explosions or flames in space.

The billowing clouds you see from an explosion are caused by the earth's atmosphere compressing in on the outrushing gas of the explosion. That produces a bounded front. As the explosion expands, it's pressure drops since it is a finite amount of matter (albeit gaseous) filling a larger and larger volume. "Do the math." As the cloud or flame front doubles its volume goes up 8 times and the pressure drops to 1/8 of the previous value. When it expands 4 times its volume has increased 64 times and its pressure to 1/64. The explosion's cloud slows and stops when it equals the atmospheric pressure.

In space the careering gas molecules would act individually, like tiny shotgun pellets. Nothing stops their scattering. Any light from the flame would be very close to the center of the explosion. In a couple feet the molecules would no longer collide and thus be forced to give off energy as light and heat.

Similarly a flame is compressed by the atmospere pushing back, containing it and making the leaf shape of a candle flame. Some of the flame of an oxy-acetylene torch is caused by the atmospheric pressure. That is, the hot carbon, hydrogen and acetylene molecules and the oxygen molecules are not flying out freely but contained in a volume where they are likely to meet and combine. In a vacuum they would only have a lottery-like chance of meeting and much would fly off uncombined.

In 2001 it is a bit disturbing to watch the ships moved by their rockets and see no flame, but that is correct. You would only see the flame when looking directly into the blast chamber where the walls of the rocket motor provide compression to force the gases to meet.

IIRC, Silent Running showed the nuclear explosion quickly turn to a shower of fragments. That was also correct.

Because I knew these things, one of my major "suspension of disbelief" problems was that despite the spacesuits I could never imagine that they were in a vacuum.

Glom
03-May-2003, 06:38 PM
The whole idea of it exploding was stupid anyway. There shouldn't have been any significant amount of combustibles in the spacecraft. The whole shuttle sequence was horrendous anyway.

Welcome to the board.

informant
03-May-2003, 07:19 PM
Explosions in space are something that systematically looks fake in pictures - even to a layman like me. Everytime I see an expanding cloud of incandescent gases in one of them I cringe a little.

TriangleMan
03-May-2003, 08:36 PM
Shouldn't this be in a different forum? :-?

Glom
03-May-2003, 08:55 PM
Strictly this belongs in the No Doughnut! forum but I think it was intended as a post stating something that was wrong (ie missing) with the armpitageddon page.

TriangleMan
03-May-2003, 09:01 PM
Okay, my mistake, carry on then . . .

beskeptical
03-May-2003, 10:31 PM
Okay, my mistake, carry on then . . .

Lots of us have made this mistake. As catchy as the name of the forum is, perhaps a change is in order?

The information as to what the forum is supposed to be for is clear. However, many of us do not avail ourselves of the information until a mistake is made. This would indicate that the available information, while clear, is not accomplishing the objective.

Re-analysis of the problem is in order.

If it matters to you, Dr. Plait, may I suggest renaming the forum?

If it doesn't matter, well I certainly don't care either. :wink:

Glom
04-May-2003, 01:26 AM
Bad Bad Astronomy is a more wittier name because it's a kind of play on words. The fact that it's in the Administration category is also a clear indication. One thing this forum is used for is to nitpick the various pages at the site (that would be the one you can access by clicking on the big BA logo, in case you didn't know) and I think lds was trying to nitpick the armpitageddon page by pointing out something that was missing from it. Of course, it is convention for those kind of nitpicks, ie ones where we debate the material, to go in No Doughnut! forum and BBA be used for spelling mistakes and things like that, but it's easy to make that mistake if you're new. The point is not being unaware of the purpose of a forum, but a different interpretation of what the purpose means.

Carv
27-May-2003, 09:07 PM
I just want to point out that explosions on Earth look fake in movies, too, especially when our hero or his dog are somehow able to outrun them. The explosions staged by movie pyro guys rely on big barrels of gasoline (low combustion temperature) to create billowing fireballs, and then these are filmed in slow motion. Most real-world explosions are far less spectacular, and pity the fool who tries to outrun one.