h a l f b a k e r yExpensive, difficult, slightly dangerous, not particularly effective... I'm on a roll.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
Before the ISS is decommissioned, I think it would be quite fun
to have the astronauts take up a bunch of consumer fireworks
and let them off in space. Obviously they'll need to figure out
how to light the touch-paper whilst wearing an EVA suit, but
how difficult can that be?
Most regular
fireworks should work just fine in space - in fact,
better than on Earth. A £5 starburst rocket would hurtle off in
a more-or-less straight line, and the shells it emits would
likewise radiate in straight lines from the point of explosion.
In the absence of an atmosphere, they would probably travel
further and faster.
Roman candles would also be quite good, with their little
glowy bits carrying on unimpeded by gravity until they fizzled
out. Sparklers would be fine, and give the astronauts
something to wave around. Bangers (firecrackers, if NASA is
paying for this) would be a bit of a disappointment, of course.
Norway Sky Spirals
https://en.wikipedi...gian_spiral_anomaly
Unexpected firework display [Frankx, Sep 24 2019]
Can astronauts see fireworks from space?
https://www.quora.c...ireworks-from-space
Short answer (at least according to this): not really. [doctorremulac3, Sep 24 2019]
NO3
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrate
Nitrate [Skewed, Sep 30 2019]
[link]
|
| |
// how difficult can that be? // |
|
| |
Easy as falling off a log. A high temperature wire filament will give enough thermal energy to start the fuse burning, and it's not oxygen dependent. |
|
| |
It's actually easier than falling off a log if you're in effectively
zero G. |
|
| |
Actually, a standard electric fuze head would work just as well in vacuum as in normal atmosphere; they certainly function perfectly in 100% CO2, Argon or BCF. |
|
| |
Russia accidentally gave a spectacular firework
display over Norway in 2009 [link]. Many puzzled
people. |
|
| |
It’s got to be a good idea! [+] |
|
| |
Sadly namby pamby worries about space junk would prevent this from coming to fruition. |
|
| |
No need, TCF commercial pyrotechnics are Baked & WKTE. |
|
| |
+ for the idea, but those would have to be some
very
big fireworks to be able to see them. |
|
| |
Looked up if any astronauts have ever seen
fireworks
from space and well, see link. |
|
| |
Now you could say the night sky might be darker
than
the earth providing a better contrast but there's a
lot
of stars up there that might cancel that advantage. |
|
| |
Looking at the link in addition to what some
astronauts have said, they have a video of
fireworks viewed from a relatively low flying jet
liner, maybe 35,000 feet. The ISS is twenty times
that height so I guess the fireworks would look
twenty times smaller. |
|
| |
Plus our atmosphere reflects obscuring light, even
in the moonless night sky that would further
occlude the view so I'm guessing that this might be
fun for the astronauts but not so much for us here
on the ground. |
|
| |
That's just a question of finance; there's no technical barrier. |
|
| |
I'm not expecting anyone on the ground to see them. These
days we have video cameras. |
|
| |
Yes, for the astronauts this would be awesome, as
would the videos. |
|
| |
If you're careful, you could "accidentally" damage a <insert
enemy-du-jour> spy satellite. |
|
| |
Not so easy, Mr. Bond ... satellites have to be well-hardened to survive in a very hostile environment; vacuum, high velocity particles, radiation, alternate heating and cooling (on one side only). |
|
| |
Even civilian ones are pretty tough; since their programmes aren't exactly cost-driven, military kit can afford to throw on some extra protection. |
|
| |
Being hardened against environmental hazards isn't the
same as being hardened against deliberate attack or even
accidental explosions. |
|
| |
How much delta v do you need from the ISS to make it to thicker atmosphere? |
|
| |
I’m curious; if the exothermic reaction in a typical
firework is not oxidation, then what is it? |
|
| |
// isn't the same as being hardened against deliberate attack or even accidental explosions // |
|
| |
In orbit, the threat from a 10g meteorite, a wayward M8 bolt, and a deliberately fired 7.62mm round are all pretty similar. Small hard heavy thing, going fast. |
|
| |
In vacuo, even close by explosions have minimal effect. There is no atmosphere to transmit a shock wave and the expansion is isotropic. The charge has to be in contact to have an effect, and what you really need is an EFP. |
|
| |
Theoretical studies of deploying fusion weapons suggest that the mechanism of action of standoff detonations come from asymmetric superheating of the target and EMP/neutron saturation. Even from a high yield device, there's little or no blast effect - the gadget may weight in at 2000 kg, but 2000 kg of plasma thins out very very fast in a 1 km radius bubble. Close placement is, sorry, would be, all.important. |
|
| |
//if the exothermic reaction in a typical firework is not
oxidation, then what is it?// It is oxidation. The oxygen is
contributed by a nitrate, chlorate, perchlorate (if you're
brave) or whatever. |
|
| |
Took you longer to get a bite there than I expected [Max] ;) |
|
| |
Though I (somewhat shamefully) must admit that if it wasn't
for my
native suspicion (& the assistance of a quick Google) you'd
have
had me too. |
|
| |
Of course, from a physical chemistry aspect, "oxidation" does not actually require a reaction with oxygen. |
|
| |
Oxidation and reduction involve the exchange of electrons, changing the "oxidation state" of the atom (ion) involved. |
|
| |
<Gently places final items of foliage onto trap, retreats stealthily into undergrowth to await unwary victim/> |
|
| |
// How much delta v do you need from the ISS to make it to thicker atmosphere?
// |
|
| |
None, if you're willing to wait a few months to a few years. The ISS has to be
reboosted periodically to maintain its altitude against drag. |
|
| |
// In orbit, the threat from a 10g meteorite, a wayward M8 bokt, and a
deliberately fired 7.62mm round are all pretty similar. Small hard heavy thing,
going fast. // |
|
| |
Satellites aren't often hardened against those things. The normal defense against
orbital debris is the same as that used when traveling through the asteroid belt:
wishful thinking. Unlike in most situations, it works pretty well here. |
|
| |
// In vacuo, even close by explosions have minimal effect. There is no atmosphere
to transmit a shock wave and the expansion is isotropic. The charge has to be in
contact to have an effect, and what you really need is an EFP. // |
|
| |
Indeed. Contribution to orbital debris (burnt-out stars and casing fragments) would
the biggest threat posed by fireworks, and it wouldn't be a very severe threat due to
drag at that altitude and there being far fewer pieces of debris than from a satellite
collision or antisatellite weapon test. But I still think that if a wayward dud firework
struck a nearly co-orbiting satellite's solar array or thermal blanket, it would do a
small but non-negligible amount of damage. Maybe it would even lodge there, get
warmed up, and explode? |
|
| |
Is your trap defeated by my erecting a sign saying "Oxidation != Oxidization"? |
|
| |
//A £5 starburst rocket would hurtle off in a more-or-less straight line, and the shells it emits would likewise radiate in straight lines from the point of explosion// - are you sure? There's still gravity in space, so I don't see why the path of the firework would be straight |
|
| |
Well, technically it would follow an orbital line, orbiting Earth
at the speed of the ISS, plus or minus the speed of the rocket
itself. But over the length of the rocket's brief flight, that
would be an almost straight line. |
|
| |
// act like a retro-rocket // |
|
| |
The rocket, unlike a gun, exerts no (or very minimal) reaction force on the carrying vehicle. That's why rockets have been used, from the era of the Le Prieur anti-balloon rocket to the present time, to provide aircraft with heavyweight armament. The launcher is typically a simple open-ended tube, and the system is recoilless. |
|
| |
Makes cannons an excellent aft mounted defense weapon in
space though, hit or miss it's extra thrust as you run away
every time you
fire it. |
|
| |
Correct, although coupling the momentum to the structure of your vessel, given the intensity of the impulse, needs careful consideration. |
|
| |
//Well, technically it would follow an orbital line// - although another way of looking at it is that all paths followed in space by objects under the influence of gravity are straight-line paths - it's just gravity curving the space they're traveling through that makes them look curved |
|
| |
// all paths followed in space by objects under the influence of
gravity are straight-line paths - it's just gravity curving the space
they're traveling through // |
|
| |
I was gonna say that (but less elegantly). I opened my mouth (i.e.
the annotation form) before reading your anno, and now I have to
say something to justify having opened it. |
|
| |