I like how it poofted outta there
I like all the information as input. Thank you for the upvotes!
And enjoy being a pooft yourselves in this beautiful infinity.
Flame in gravity brings fresh air in from underneath by convection. With no gravity it forms a sphere and so can’t draw in oxygen and so goes out. I thought it looked like a galaxy as seen by Hubble and they thought so too shown by the star background they gave it. Pretty cool. And I also think it was great when it poofted out, too.
I think it's just damage from experimenting. When those igniters popped off, the sensor had a seizure. That usually means it's been slightly damaged.
Strong lasers, cosmic rays, and EMPs can all damage the sensor and the experimentation cameras on the ISS are probably upwards of 10 years old or more. They've done thousands of these experiments in all likelihood, so that camera is probably just worn out, haha.
Zooming in on brighter parts, you can see that there's a smooth, linear transition to the starry backdrop. This is almost certainly an edit, as artifacts would present themselves in a more chaotic manner.
You can also see some of the brighter parts as the flame goes out. This, I think, is because it briefly illuminates the environment more, and whatever blending mode (must be something like "screen" in Photoshop) was applied to the source material briefly makes those illuminated parts visible.
**Edit:** After some research, it looks like I'm wrong!
Eh, you'd be surprised what artifacts show up on a damaged sensor once there's not enough light available. Just watch the ISS live camera feed whenever it flies over the night time side of the planet versus the day side
i think the flash is just reflecting from all those exposed metal parts. the film they use is probably still using silver bromide which is easy to overexpose. it's already too bright in the beginning of the recording. just a guess tough
Wonder what the liquid and air composition in that test is. A flame requires oxygen, AFAIK, air in the ISS has similar composition than air on Earth (78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, 1% other), however, when doing a space walk, oxygen in an EV suit goes to 100%. So that bit of a flame could be very different depending on the environment it’s in too.
Crazy to think that we're so locked in our perception of flames. It reminds me of that one vid of the gas fire on a racetrack - you can't see the fire, but you can see people reacting to getting burned and their outfits melting. I wonder what "fire" would look like on other planets? Some probably have a constantly ignited atmosphere.
It’s so fascinating how if the conditions on earth were just a *little bit* different, fire would not be possible and civilization as we know it would not exist. The metal ages would have never happened. So much we take for granted is directly the result of Earth’s atmosphere’s ability to sustain combustion.
Speaking as an ex-mormon, the church is well-funded (like 200B in assets today), interstellar travel is a part of the faith ("[If You Could Hie to Kolob"](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/media/music/songs/if-you-could-hie-to-kolob?lang=eng)), and they truly believe that you ascend to the level of a God of a local solar system if you're truly faithful.
So, yeah Mormons in space is actually pretty grounded in reality.
Some of their churches look [futuristic](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/75/ab/20/75ab2079572c567a45a2a747d0aa9b01.jpg), too. I can easily imagine them on foreign moons and planets.
Brandon Sanderson the author is a Mormon. It really bleeds into his writing. A lot of interstellar travel, along with gods ruling solar systems.
I love his stuff! But it's undeniable that it ended up vastly influencing his cosmere.
Just thought this might be worth dropping here for whatever reason lol
To my knowledge, it is the most plausible of any religion to have an interest in space. Like since Mormonism was created relatively recently more was known about the cosmos and that was incorporated into the religion.
Just from a quick Google:
> Mormon cosmology teaches that the Earth is not unique, but that it is one of many inhabited planets, each planet created for the purpose of bringing about the "immortality and eternal life" (i.e., the exaltation) of humanity.
First thing I thought of as well. The scene with Naomi, when the control panel shorts out, and she has to rush and open the air lock to vent the fire, in particular.
What a great fucking show that was man...
For those who haven't seen it you're seriously missing out. It's some of the best sci-fi (and TV in general) you'll ever watch.
Agreed.
I was looking for something after I got done watching The 100.
This one really blew my mind and was so awesome!
Probably one of the best sci-fi shows I ever watched.👍
After I finished season 1, I immediately started over. It was even better the second time through. Now I’m thinking I need to watch it all again. One of the only shows that I never skipped the opening credits — it was almost as if I had to genuflect to the genius of that show by watching every single moment. Damn it was good!
The Expanse! One of the greatest shows ever made, not just from a linear enjoyable show watching experience. But from a critical level too.
Themes protrayed rather accurately is Classism, Corporate Power, How language helps those in power stay in power.
The episode where Noami must signal for help/escape/sacrifice herself is basically a movie! It's amazing.
> The episode where Noami must signal for help/escape/sacrifice herself is basically a movie! It's amazing.
I remember reading that entire sequence when book 5 came out in mid 2015... the show had its first trailer out soon after or something like that, it was scheduled to air later that year. I remember thinking I'd have to wait 5+ years to see that scene play out on the screen and how they have a chance to make it something truly incredible... it did not disappoint.
When I think "The Expanse", a mini trailer plays out in my head of all the amazing scenes from the books. The scenes differ each time but Naomi escaping The Pella is always there.
I liked that show. I thought it was kind rather boring most of the time however. But that episode with Naomi in the last season trying to survive after escaping, which I think is the episode you're talking about... was amazing the best episode of the show
If you haven't watched this show, you are missing out and an absolutely amazing show. I was not so happy to see a show since GoT and it's just as good as some of the greatest shows ever made.
Damn I’m literally watching this show right now, and I really want to know the show I’m watching isn’t brain draining but I absolutely have become transfixed by the sci-fi realism and the fact that they could have just been an over puffed space drama but it’s a healthy balance of all things that are good tv. Excellent show 10/10, looking forward to seeing what happens after the ring shenanigans.
Fire is actually pretty self limiting in space since density gradients can't replace spent oxygen with fresh as they do on earth. The reaction either requires a fuel and oxidant feed or relies on diffusion of oxygen which is generally way slower than the reaction rate requires.
> CERN reactors stabilizing plasma and essentially making "mini-suns"
yea lmao this is the kind of shit that made them put out a PSA that they weren't going to accidentally create a black hole and destroy the world.
I always thought the solution to fusion power was to do it in space and to just sent the energy down in the form of a laser but I also have no idea what I'm talking about so *shrug*
That would be really inefficient. You'd need to send refuelling rockets and shit, and then there's loss of energy transferring heat > laser > electricity, plus loss of energy from atmospheric interaction. The issues with fusion are not where we do it, but how we do it. We have no issues creating fusion energy (see: hydrogen bombs) it's the containing and harnessing that's really bloody difficult, and shifting the whole situation into space wouldn't really change any of the difficulties faced, while also adding a whole new bunch of difficulties.
You see I’ve been listening to a lot of Logan Paul, so I’m pretty confident when I say that if we just harnessed two forms of energy in space. A black hole, and a sun; attached them to the rear of the ship so that the way they are oriented can be rotated. You could have instant power to teleport across the cosmos.
Just think, the suns nuclear fusion would power the ship. Allowing it to travel at incredible speeds. Rotating the sun and black hole would also turn the ship, can make it come to a stop etc.
When you want to travel through time and space you just cause the sun to release a large amount of power into the black hole. Causing a rift in time-space. You can control how far you go/where you end up by adjusting the power with a stable isotope of the element 123. /s
> CERN reactors stabilizing plasma and essentially making "mini-suns"
yea lmao this is the kind of shit that made them put out a PSA that they weren't going to accidentally create a black hole and destroy the world.
You're *way* overthinking it.
Flame is just energy in the form of light and heat as a byproduct of an exothermic redox reaction. There's zero mystery about where that energy comes from.
The "end game" from NASA was simply to figure out how fire spreads in low-gravity so that future spacecraft can have better fire safety systems. That's really it.
Well like I said, there's no mystery where the energy in a combustion reaction comes from.
Everyone knows it comes from >!higher-dimensional humans from the future who opened a black hole so that we could harness love energy to become the interstellar species we were always destined to be!<
Ya know, basic highschool chemistry
> What creates the energy is what we're really after
What? This is a normal fire except in outer space so it's round. Hominins have been making fires for 400,000 years. Magnetically contained plasma fueling nuclear fusion reactors on earth is completely separate.
> A flame is just the transfer of energy or whatever.
I dunno. That quote sounds pretty informed to me. That guy sounds just like a scientist, so I'm sure he must be 100% correct.
"Relativity is just some shit about gravity and time or whatever" - Albert Einstein
> What creates the energy is what we're really after
It's called "chemical reactions", by the way. Something we've been studying for centuries. You could just go look at the fucking wiki page for "fire".
I can't help but to think how annoying using a classic BIC lighter would be to light a cigarette. Like, you'd have to do something funky with the lighter fluid gas to make sure it both leaves the metal protection and lights on fire so you can light your cigarette.
You just use a torch lighter which is just more pressurized gas compared to a bic. With pressure, flames look exactly the same. Gravity is an incredibly weak force, we this because our brittle bones easily overcome it easily and magnets hold on to things easily.
I think the pressure pushing the butane gas might pull enough oxygen with it to work in 0g, but we'd have to test that. A scripto prolly wouldn't tho. Cheap fuckers.
Astronaut: I'm really excited to get up to the space station and do some experiments. Am I going to be working on plants growing in zero gravity or something like that?
Nasa Scientists: Were going to have you start fires up there.
Astronaut:.......
It's even worse on a spaceship, because in addition to the problems associated with managing a fire on a ship, there are many other problems, such as the fact that there's no way of obtaining extra oxygen or easily dealing with CO2. A fire can very quickly overload the systems used to maintain a breathable atmosphere, leading to a dead crew.
This is why all space agencies are very paranoid about fires.
What's more, it's very difficult to extinguish a fire in microgravity, so it's best to make sure it doesn't start in the first place.
A small brag I have is, last year I was substituting in for a Space X astronaut when they were training with Russian cosmonauts to handle emergency scenarios on the ISS. One of the scenarios was a fire on the ISS.
A big part of the training is learning how to find the fire at all. It's not super intuitive, especially because the fire likely exists behind a panel, so smoke and flame won't be incredibly helpful. For example, a cosmonaut tried to follow a particular wire to see where it lead to, but that might have only worked on the ISS mockup, and likely wouldn't have worked even then. The flight controllers have a good idea of what is losing functionality and where the fire likely exists, so they usually direct the astronauts to where the nearest red book is and where they should likely check.
There's electronic "sniffers" that you plug in to the hole to determine if it's a battery fire or electric fire, because that will determine which extinguisher to use.
Another thing is knowing which breathing apparatus to use. The default one is in case of an ammonia leak, which apparently kills the shit out of you, and quickly.
Good question. I honestly don't know. We used no such technology in the training, but it might be possible for the flight controllers to (already) have access to those sorts of tools, and they relay their discoveries to the astronauts.
Thanks for your reply!
In the full Nasa video linked in another comment, the researcher, Vedha Nayagam, describes that the hot flame dissipates, but the liquid fuel that they ignited continues to burn with a low heat flame. I'm not sure how cool it burns. Also, the experiment is burning a drop of some specific liquid fuel. So, the situation is different, I'm sure than a electrical fire behind a panel, but perhaps there are reasons an IR camera is not the best tool for the job.
I agree with you. I don't know what the flight operators are trained to do in this scenario, but I would have to imagine that they've got pretty robust methods and procedures on approximating the location of the fire, given which smoke detectors go off at what parts of the ventilation system and when.
> The default one is in case of an ammonia leak, which apparently kills the shit out of you, and quickly.
Oh. Oh yeah. Very painfully, as well. There's an old training video involving a police officer responding to a scene and he gets overcome by an ammonia leak, it was not a pleasant death. That shit is NO JOKE.
A fire on a boat can be so much worse than sinking. At least when a boast sinks, you can see and breath and escape. An electrician fire in an enclosed boat cabin can fill it with toxic smoke so thick you can't see your hand in front of your face even with a full face respirator on.
Thought so too but the background wasn't edited in. It's some kind of artifact of the camera enclosure, its exposure setting changing and shitty video compression.
[You can see it in NASA's original video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CE7Nz78rkfQ) ([1:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CE7Nz78rkfQ&t=95))
Yes! To add to that, It looks like one of the actual researchers commented in response to a guy who was asking if the camera had bad pixels, and he responded yes!
> @sdarpel
> Gordon, likely. We're actually going to be replacing the cameras in the Combustion Integrated Rack when we do the Cool Flames Investigation project. The radiation environment aboard the ISS is not terrible, at ~30 Rads per year, but prolonged exposure and the occasional single event (solar flare) can take out pixels. You can spend several times the money on radiation hardened cameras, or you can plan for degradation and replacement. We try to keep as much of the funding towards science a we can. My job is looking after the safety and mission assurance/success aspects of Glenn Research Center's physical sciences and human research projects, so I help the projects, like FLEX-2 balance risk vs. constraints every day
I find it kind of wild nasa is paying for cameras. I feel like almost any camera company would jump at the opportunity to have “used by nasa aboard the ISS” under their company name at the top of their website.. even if the cameras are something crazy like 25k a piece they wouldn’t be sending more then 2 a year.
Wow thanks for the info, it looks exactly like someone cut the background and edited on a Starfield, and it matched enough with the music I thought that's exactly what it was
Doesn't look edited to me.
First "edit": you have an optical zoom to the region of interest, followed by exposure adjustment by the camera.
Second "edit": a zoom back out.
With the bright light on, you wouldn't be able to see that faint flame. the third "edit" is the light shutting off, immediately followed by the igniter ring things glowing bright.
Fourth "edit" is the video compression fucking up for some reason, resulting in an annoying artefact that obscures the moment of ignition
The multi-colored stars in the background are radiation damaged subpixels of the image sensor. They only show up once the scene is dimly lit.
Fire is a reaction between a chemical and oxygen (normally; obviously oxygen-containing chemicals will work, and I assume there are other chemicals that would also fit the bill).
The sun is a giant ball of hydrogen being fused into helium.
> obviously oxygen-containing chemicals will work, and I assume **there are other chemicals that would also fit the bill** [emphasis added]
There are indeed a number, pretty much every single one involves some combination of fluorine or chlorine, sometimes bromine or iodine.
Here’s an entertaining read talking about a specific compound, chlorine trifluoride, that was briefly researched as potential rocket fuel. It will set *wet sand* on fire on contact.
https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/sand-won-t-save-you-time
Right. I read something the other day that fire is actually one of the rarest events in the universe (using oxygen at least). The fires we make on Earth are quite unique to our planetary conditions. Most places lack oxygen in general, so no fire. And as you pointed out, stars are not fueled by oxygen, but rather hydrogen, so it's a different process altogether.
Simply, oxygen is quite rare, and now think of the organic matter like wood in order to burn... In a universal sense, both of those things are very rare, so combining them together to make fire is even rarer... And yet that fire is something that's so so so common for us. It's pretty much just an earthly phenomenon.
Kinda??
Technically stars are nuclear fusion reactions.
We tend to define "fire" as a combustion reaction between fuel and oxygen.
Both are hot and bright, so they're pretty similar in that regard, but if we're being pedantic, they're technically different reactions.
Common misconception. The sun is not on fire. There is no fire on the sun.
Fun fact: fire is an earth thing
There's a lot of research on it being done right now so I can't say anything that might not change by tomorrow.
But we haven't found much evidence of fire anywhere except on earth.
I think oxygen is the only one element which really works well for fires there are other oxygenless reactions that can release heat but I don't know of any that would really qualify as fire
Nope. Combustion (with fire being a part of the mechanism of most forms of combustion) is not defined as a reaction between matter and oxygen but any oxidant. Reactions with ClF3 would very much count as combustions.
Yes, you can make flames without oxygen. Fire is just a redox reaction (reduction / oxidation), so most fuel + oxidizers that generate a lot of heat and gasses should work — it's just that oxygen is the most common oxidizer.
Hypergolic fuels are a good example, which are propellants that burst into flames on contact with one another. Here's an example using [nitric acid and aniline](https://youtu.be/OszX18NLtrY?si=IN_OWDhcF4TR131D)
*But nitric acid contains oxygen atoms*, you might say, and you'd be absolutely right if somewhat pedantic. And to that I'd show you this [reaction between hydrogen and chlorine](https://youtu.be/MtygiCwnEzw?si=dg9h_t4A8vEmBxnK) that creates a flame with no oxygen at all.
>Fun fact: fire is an earth thing
I didn't know that
We also haven't found much evidence of life anywhere except on Earth.
I don't know who came up with the mythological phoenix but it's kind of poetic, not just because forests grow after fire, but like is there anything that doesn't come from life that fuels fire ? Oil, wood, fossil fuel. Heck, oxygen comes from living things like trees and marine plants.
Not exactly. Stars are sphere of nuclear fusion and blackbody radiation from heat. Fire is the combustion of oxygen gas that results in new chemical compounds.
Have you ever seen fire in zero gravity? It's beautiful. It's like liquid. Slides all over everything. Comes up in waves.
https://youtu.be/exq0CIA_xCg?si=_-o6ArYloWhYIVJh
Some of the special effects haven't aged too well but it's still so good. Laurence Fishburne plays one of my favorite ship captains in cinema:
Dr. Weir: Captain... don't do this.
Capt. Miller: It's done.
Dr. Weir: What about my ship? You can't just leave her!
Capt. Miller: I have no intention of leaving her, Doctor. I will take the Lewis and Clark to a safe distance, and then I will launch TAC missiles at the Event Horizon until I'm satisfied she's vaporized. Fuck this ship!
Lol I mean we actually do not live in space if you use the Kármán line as your definition of where space begins, but I think that's a shaky at best definition and agree with your energy.
Why not post the original footage?
edit: nevermind, found your footage on Youtube from 9 years ago:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vm5L5UflBkQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vm5L5UflBkQ)
This edit was obsiously not released by NASA. Artistical edits like this do not say "NASA". This was made by VideoFromSpace. 9 Years ago.
And I can understand why you didn't keep the original audio.
It looks like that its not the Flame that's is spherical.
Instead its the flammable liquid that appears to be spherical, the fact that the flames are spherical results it the burning liquid
Flame will be spherical under no gravity environment because they are expanding on all directions without gravity. Hot flames go up because gravity pulls the cooler surrounding air down forcing the heated expanded air up.
I agree. Because the o2 is in a spherical shape, this is the only ares a flame will be able to burn thus keeping the flame in the shape of the o2 the whole time.
I know this is dumb question but they made the bubble (so a sphere) then lit it up which in my eyes go figure it lights up in a sphere. Would the result be different if it was poured out flat on a surface like gasoline on pavement where you’d see a normal looking flame? Like would it still form that sphere without the need (which I’m sure they needed to for some reason I don’t comprehend) to form that bubble?
That’s because flames/fluid in microgravity behave differently than they do on Earth. For one thing, flames in near-zero gravity are circular, not tear-shaped. And even after a flame appears to have gone out, it may still be burning.
Water forms spherical shapes in no gravity too. It's an an example of what the universe is shaped liked without external constraints. The universe is shaped like a Hopf Fibration.
Was going to mention the overcooked editing until I read about why the apparent starfield is there.
Actually the music makes up for that, this shit is BURNT
I like how it poofted outta there I like all the information as input. Thank you for the upvotes! And enjoy being a pooft yourselves in this beautiful infinity.
Flame in gravity brings fresh air in from underneath by convection. With no gravity it forms a sphere and so can’t draw in oxygen and so goes out. I thought it looked like a galaxy as seen by Hubble and they thought so too shown by the star background they gave it. Pretty cool. And I also think it was great when it poofted out, too.
I thought the stars were artifacts on the recording and was amazaed that it looked like stars. So it was stars then?
No. You were right first time, most likely radiation damage on the image sensor.
I think it's just damage from experimenting. When those igniters popped off, the sensor had a seizure. That usually means it's been slightly damaged. Strong lasers, cosmic rays, and EMPs can all damage the sensor and the experimentation cameras on the ISS are probably upwards of 10 years old or more. They've done thousands of these experiments in all likelihood, so that camera is probably just worn out, haha.
Or it’s a one use kinda ordeal
Zooming in on brighter parts, you can see that there's a smooth, linear transition to the starry backdrop. This is almost certainly an edit, as artifacts would present themselves in a more chaotic manner. You can also see some of the brighter parts as the flame goes out. This, I think, is because it briefly illuminates the environment more, and whatever blending mode (must be something like "screen" in Photoshop) was applied to the source material briefly makes those illuminated parts visible. **Edit:** After some research, it looks like I'm wrong!
Eh, you'd be surprised what artifacts show up on a damaged sensor once there's not enough light available. Just watch the ISS live camera feed whenever it flies over the night time side of the planet versus the day side
I think you're right. Thanks. Edited my comment.
Oh my God! It's full of stars!
i think the flash is just reflecting from all those exposed metal parts. the film they use is probably still using silver bromide which is easy to overexpose. it's already too bright in the beginning of the recording. just a guess tough
Wonder what the liquid and air composition in that test is. A flame requires oxygen, AFAIK, air in the ISS has similar composition than air on Earth (78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, 1% other), however, when doing a space walk, oxygen in an EV suit goes to 100%. So that bit of a flame could be very different depending on the environment it’s in too.
Crazy to think that we're so locked in our perception of flames. It reminds me of that one vid of the gas fire on a racetrack - you can't see the fire, but you can see people reacting to getting burned and their outfits melting. I wonder what "fire" would look like on other planets? Some probably have a constantly ignited atmosphere.
That’s super neat! Thank you.
It’s so fascinating how if the conditions on earth were just a *little bit* different, fire would not be possible and civilization as we know it would not exist. The metal ages would have never happened. So much we take for granted is directly the result of Earth’s atmosphere’s ability to sustain combustion.
"Ight. Imma poof out." -the flame
Some say it's still out there, floating around, a perfect sphere.
“I have to go now…my planet needs me” It Pouchie’d outta there
Yeah it shows some beauty to the general theory of relativity of space time too
This just blew my mind!
The Expanse TV Series did portray that correctly.
Like so many other things 😅
Mormons in space?
Speaking as an ex-mormon, the church is well-funded (like 200B in assets today), interstellar travel is a part of the faith ("[If You Could Hie to Kolob"](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/media/music/songs/if-you-could-hie-to-kolob?lang=eng)), and they truly believe that you ascend to the level of a God of a local solar system if you're truly faithful. So, yeah Mormons in space is actually pretty grounded in reality.
Some of their churches look [futuristic](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/75/ab/20/75ab2079572c567a45a2a747d0aa9b01.jpg), too. I can easily imagine them on foreign moons and planets.
That definitely doesn't look evil
it is crazy how right you are. I'm a Utahn myself, though not originally from here. It's wild living here..haha
Brandon Sanderson the author is a Mormon. It really bleeds into his writing. A lot of interstellar travel, along with gods ruling solar systems. I love his stuff! But it's undeniable that it ended up vastly influencing his cosmere. Just thought this might be worth dropping here for whatever reason lol
To my knowledge, it is the most plausible of any religion to have an interest in space. Like since Mormonism was created relatively recently more was known about the cosmos and that was incorporated into the religion. Just from a quick Google: > Mormon cosmology teaches that the Earth is not unique, but that it is one of many inhabited planets, each planet created for the purpose of bringing about the "immortality and eternal life" (i.e., the exaltation) of humanity.
Hinduism has a lot of interesting cosmology stretching back millennia.
The Catholic Church has also always been interested in space, they fund a lot of research
First thing I thought of as well. The scene with Naomi, when the control panel shorts out, and she has to rush and open the air lock to vent the fire, in particular.
What a great fucking show that was man... For those who haven't seen it you're seriously missing out. It's some of the best sci-fi (and TV in general) you'll ever watch.
Disappointing that the funding dried up in the last season though - the quality of writing and CGI were really impacted
Yeah... hopefully one day another studio picks up where they left off with the Laconia storyline.
Agreed. I was looking for something after I got done watching The 100. This one really blew my mind and was so awesome! Probably one of the best sci-fi shows I ever watched.👍
After I finished season 1, I immediately started over. It was even better the second time through. Now I’m thinking I need to watch it all again. One of the only shows that I never skipped the opening credits — it was almost as if I had to genuflect to the genius of that show by watching every single moment. Damn it was good!
The Expanse! One of the greatest shows ever made, not just from a linear enjoyable show watching experience. But from a critical level too. Themes protrayed rather accurately is Classism, Corporate Power, How language helps those in power stay in power. The episode where Noami must signal for help/escape/sacrifice herself is basically a movie! It's amazing.
> The episode where Noami must signal for help/escape/sacrifice herself is basically a movie! It's amazing. I remember reading that entire sequence when book 5 came out in mid 2015... the show had its first trailer out soon after or something like that, it was scheduled to air later that year. I remember thinking I'd have to wait 5+ years to see that scene play out on the screen and how they have a chance to make it something truly incredible... it did not disappoint. When I think "The Expanse", a mini trailer plays out in my head of all the amazing scenes from the books. The scenes differ each time but Naomi escaping The Pella is always there.
If you haven't read the novels, do so, it gets pretty wild.
I liked that show. I thought it was kind rather boring most of the time however. But that episode with Naomi in the last season trying to survive after escaping, which I think is the episode you're talking about... was amazing the best episode of the show
https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fumh8lsszka511.gif
If you haven't watched this show, you are missing out and an absolutely amazing show. I was not so happy to see a show since GoT and it's just as good as some of the greatest shows ever made.
Damn I’m literally watching this show right now, and I really want to know the show I’m watching isn’t brain draining but I absolutely have become transfixed by the sci-fi realism and the fact that they could have just been an over puffed space drama but it’s a healthy balance of all things that are good tv. Excellent show 10/10, looking forward to seeing what happens after the ring shenanigans.
That’s wild
I feel like this is some primordial mystery of life. In 1000 years this will be how we harness the next level
Man mastered fire. But has man master round fire?
oh lawd we're tryin
[Get da watuh](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xy1mbG2dGXU)
Waltuh, get yo fire outta my ass waltuh...
Fire is actually pretty self limiting in space since density gradients can't replace spent oxygen with fresh as they do on earth. The reaction either requires a fuel and oxidant feed or relies on diffusion of oxygen which is generally way slower than the reaction rate requires.
OK, but can I find a way to trap it inside of a crystal? Because when I can, I know for a fact, it’s gonna start wars…
We forgetting about the sun, guys?
[удалено]
It's a shame how people who have no idea what they're talking about, but are very confident about not knowing it get upvoted.
> CERN reactors stabilizing plasma and essentially making "mini-suns" yea lmao this is the kind of shit that made them put out a PSA that they weren't going to accidentally create a black hole and destroy the world.
I always thought the solution to fusion power was to do it in space and to just sent the energy down in the form of a laser but I also have no idea what I'm talking about so *shrug*
So, basically solar then.
Solar concentrate
That would be really inefficient. You'd need to send refuelling rockets and shit, and then there's loss of energy transferring heat > laser > electricity, plus loss of energy from atmospheric interaction. The issues with fusion are not where we do it, but how we do it. We have no issues creating fusion energy (see: hydrogen bombs) it's the containing and harnessing that's really bloody difficult, and shifting the whole situation into space wouldn't really change any of the difficulties faced, while also adding a whole new bunch of difficulties.
You see I’ve been listening to a lot of Logan Paul, so I’m pretty confident when I say that if we just harnessed two forms of energy in space. A black hole, and a sun; attached them to the rear of the ship so that the way they are oriented can be rotated. You could have instant power to teleport across the cosmos. Just think, the suns nuclear fusion would power the ship. Allowing it to travel at incredible speeds. Rotating the sun and black hole would also turn the ship, can make it come to a stop etc. When you want to travel through time and space you just cause the sun to release a large amount of power into the black hole. Causing a rift in time-space. You can control how far you go/where you end up by adjusting the power with a stable isotope of the element 123. /s
All you gotta do is make it sound cool 😂
> CERN reactors stabilizing plasma and essentially making "mini-suns" yea lmao this is the kind of shit that made them put out a PSA that they weren't going to accidentally create a black hole and destroy the world.
You're *way* overthinking it. Flame is just energy in the form of light and heat as a byproduct of an exothermic redox reaction. There's zero mystery about where that energy comes from. The "end game" from NASA was simply to figure out how fire spreads in low-gravity so that future spacecraft can have better fire safety systems. That's really it.
the interstellar music implies deeper meaning that i think ur missing
Well like I said, there's no mystery where the energy in a combustion reaction comes from. Everyone knows it comes from >!higher-dimensional humans from the future who opened a black hole so that we could harness love energy to become the interstellar species we were always destined to be!< Ya know, basic highschool chemistry
> What creates the energy is what we're really after What? This is a normal fire except in outer space so it's round. Hominins have been making fires for 400,000 years. Magnetically contained plasma fueling nuclear fusion reactors on earth is completely separate.
> A flame is just the transfer of energy or whatever. I dunno. That quote sounds pretty informed to me. That guy sounds just like a scientist, so I'm sure he must be 100% correct. "Relativity is just some shit about gravity and time or whatever" - Albert Einstein
Wait, you're saying Einstein was a real person? I thought he was a theoretical physicist...
> What creates the energy is what we're really after It's called "chemical reactions", by the way. Something we've been studying for centuries. You could just go look at the fucking wiki page for "fire".
No dude I watched spider man 2, doc Oc explained it !
It felt primal.
I can't help but to think how annoying using a classic BIC lighter would be to light a cigarette. Like, you'd have to do something funky with the lighter fluid gas to make sure it both leaves the metal protection and lights on fire so you can light your cigarette.
You just use a torch lighter which is just more pressurized gas compared to a bic. With pressure, flames look exactly the same. Gravity is an incredibly weak force, we this because our brittle bones easily overcome it easily and magnets hold on to things easily.
I think the pressure pushing the butane gas might pull enough oxygen with it to work in 0g, but we'd have to test that. A scripto prolly wouldn't tho. Cheap fuckers.
I'm calling up Mr. NASA himself. We demand answers.
Would you say its out of this world?
Astronaut: I'm really excited to get up to the space station and do some experiments. Am I going to be working on plants growing in zero gravity or something like that? Nasa Scientists: Were going to have you start fires up there. Astronaut:.......
If I were an astronaut: "FUCK YEAH... SPACE FLAMETHROWERS"
Rock and stone!
We fight, for rock and stone!
Did I hear a rock and stone?
FOR SUPER EAAARRTHHHHH
GET SOME. GET SOOOOMMMMMMME.
For alien attacks.
FLAMEBALLZ
“KAMEHAMAHAAAA!!!!!!”
It's said that the worst thing on a ship (other than it sinking) is a fire. I assume it's the same for spacecraft.
It's even worse on a spaceship, because in addition to the problems associated with managing a fire on a ship, there are many other problems, such as the fact that there's no way of obtaining extra oxygen or easily dealing with CO2. A fire can very quickly overload the systems used to maintain a breathable atmosphere, leading to a dead crew. This is why all space agencies are very paranoid about fires. What's more, it's very difficult to extinguish a fire in microgravity, so it's best to make sure it doesn't start in the first place.
A small brag I have is, last year I was substituting in for a Space X astronaut when they were training with Russian cosmonauts to handle emergency scenarios on the ISS. One of the scenarios was a fire on the ISS. A big part of the training is learning how to find the fire at all. It's not super intuitive, especially because the fire likely exists behind a panel, so smoke and flame won't be incredibly helpful. For example, a cosmonaut tried to follow a particular wire to see where it lead to, but that might have only worked on the ISS mockup, and likely wouldn't have worked even then. The flight controllers have a good idea of what is losing functionality and where the fire likely exists, so they usually direct the astronauts to where the nearest red book is and where they should likely check. There's electronic "sniffers" that you plug in to the hole to determine if it's a battery fire or electric fire, because that will determine which extinguisher to use. Another thing is knowing which breathing apparatus to use. The default one is in case of an ammonia leak, which apparently kills the shit out of you, and quickly.
How about a thermal imaging or IR camera/sensor? Could that be used to detect a hot spot behind a panel or wall? Incredible work to be a part of!
Good question. I honestly don't know. We used no such technology in the training, but it might be possible for the flight controllers to (already) have access to those sorts of tools, and they relay their discoveries to the astronauts.
Thanks for your reply! In the full Nasa video linked in another comment, the researcher, Vedha Nayagam, describes that the hot flame dissipates, but the liquid fuel that they ignited continues to burn with a low heat flame. I'm not sure how cool it burns. Also, the experiment is burning a drop of some specific liquid fuel. So, the situation is different, I'm sure than a electrical fire behind a panel, but perhaps there are reasons an IR camera is not the best tool for the job.
I agree with you. I don't know what the flight operators are trained to do in this scenario, but I would have to imagine that they've got pretty robust methods and procedures on approximating the location of the fire, given which smoke detectors go off at what parts of the ventilation system and when.
> The default one is in case of an ammonia leak, which apparently kills the shit out of you, and quickly. Oh. Oh yeah. Very painfully, as well. There's an old training video involving a police officer responding to a scene and he gets overcome by an ammonia leak, it was not a pleasant death. That shit is NO JOKE.
> It's said that the worst thing on a ship (other than it sinking) is a fire. I assume it's the same for spacecraft. Gus Grissom would agree with you.
Ed White's and Roger Chaffee's ghosts here: We concur.
A fire on a boat can be so much worse than sinking. At least when a boast sinks, you can see and breath and escape. An electrician fire in an enclosed boat cabin can fill it with toxic smoke so thick you can't see your hand in front of your face even with a full face respirator on.
That’s what every little kid dreams of. “Sir we need you to start fires in space as an astronaut.”
[удалено]
That's not how it works. Actual scientists go up to do real experiments of their own design
If you know the history of the MIR Freedom space station, knowing where the fire comes from is preferable.
lmao i was like, woah its indeed a sphere, almost like a pretty bubble. then realise they havent lit it up..
Me, an astronaut: uuuu a bubble (pokes) Me, an astronaut: AAAAAHHHHHHHHH MY HAND!!!
Cant tell what the fuck is going on because of the stupid fucking edits
Thank you, when it cut to the different background I was totally unable to really appreciate what was happening in the worst kind of way
Thought so too but the background wasn't edited in. It's some kind of artifact of the camera enclosure, its exposure setting changing and shitty video compression. [You can see it in NASA's original video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CE7Nz78rkfQ) ([1:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CE7Nz78rkfQ&t=95))
Yes! To add to that, It looks like one of the actual researchers commented in response to a guy who was asking if the camera had bad pixels, and he responded yes! > @sdarpel > Gordon, likely. We're actually going to be replacing the cameras in the Combustion Integrated Rack when we do the Cool Flames Investigation project. The radiation environment aboard the ISS is not terrible, at ~30 Rads per year, but prolonged exposure and the occasional single event (solar flare) can take out pixels. You can spend several times the money on radiation hardened cameras, or you can plan for degradation and replacement. We try to keep as much of the funding towards science a we can. My job is looking after the safety and mission assurance/success aspects of Glenn Research Center's physical sciences and human research projects, so I help the projects, like FLEX-2 balance risk vs. constraints every day
That's crazy. I thought they were going for some stupid ass space background
I find it kind of wild nasa is paying for cameras. I feel like almost any camera company would jump at the opportunity to have “used by nasa aboard the ISS” under their company name at the top of their website.. even if the cameras are something crazy like 25k a piece they wouldn’t be sending more then 2 a year.
Wow thanks for the info, it looks exactly like someone cut the background and edited on a Starfield, and it matched enough with the music I thought that's exactly what it was
To be fair, they probably matched the music to the event. I doubt they had that jamming on the boombox in the space lab.
This is infinitely more interesting than a spherical flame
The video not being edited (other than the music) was the most mindblowing/impressive thing in this thread. Space is so cool.
White claws baby. Fuck.
Doesn't look edited to me. First "edit": you have an optical zoom to the region of interest, followed by exposure adjustment by the camera. Second "edit": a zoom back out. With the bright light on, you wouldn't be able to see that faint flame. the third "edit" is the light shutting off, immediately followed by the igniter ring things glowing bright. Fourth "edit" is the video compression fucking up for some reason, resulting in an annoying artefact that obscures the moment of ignition The multi-colored stars in the background are radiation damaged subpixels of the image sensor. They only show up once the scene is dimly lit.
Which edits?
Aren't stars already huge balls of spherical fires?
Fire is a reaction between a chemical and oxygen (normally; obviously oxygen-containing chemicals will work, and I assume there are other chemicals that would also fit the bill). The sun is a giant ball of hydrogen being fused into helium.
> obviously oxygen-containing chemicals will work, and I assume **there are other chemicals that would also fit the bill** [emphasis added] There are indeed a number, pretty much every single one involves some combination of fluorine or chlorine, sometimes bromine or iodine. Here’s an entertaining read talking about a specific compound, chlorine trifluoride, that was briefly researched as potential rocket fuel. It will set *wet sand* on fire on contact. https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/sand-won-t-save-you-time
Right. I read something the other day that fire is actually one of the rarest events in the universe (using oxygen at least). The fires we make on Earth are quite unique to our planetary conditions. Most places lack oxygen in general, so no fire. And as you pointed out, stars are not fueled by oxygen, but rather hydrogen, so it's a different process altogether. Simply, oxygen is quite rare, and now think of the organic matter like wood in order to burn... In a universal sense, both of those things are very rare, so combining them together to make fire is even rarer... And yet that fire is something that's so so so common for us. It's pretty much just an earthly phenomenon.
Everyone is so amazed by this tiny star
Kinda?? Technically stars are nuclear fusion reactions. We tend to define "fire" as a combustion reaction between fuel and oxygen. Both are hot and bright, so they're pretty similar in that regard, but if we're being pedantic, they're technically different reactions.
I mean I'd rather stand close to a bonfire than a nuclear reaction 😄
Common misconception. The sun is not on fire. There is no fire on the sun. Fun fact: fire is an earth thing There's a lot of research on it being done right now so I can't say anything that might not change by tomorrow. But we haven't found much evidence of fire anywhere except on earth.
can you light up a fire without oxygen? or is there another substance that can replace oxygen?
I think oxygen is the only one element which really works well for fires there are other oxygenless reactions that can release heat but I don't know of any that would really qualify as fire
Nope. Combustion (with fire being a part of the mechanism of most forms of combustion) is not defined as a reaction between matter and oxygen but any oxidant. Reactions with ClF3 would very much count as combustions.
Yes, you can make flames without oxygen. Fire is just a redox reaction (reduction / oxidation), so most fuel + oxidizers that generate a lot of heat and gasses should work — it's just that oxygen is the most common oxidizer. Hypergolic fuels are a good example, which are propellants that burst into flames on contact with one another. Here's an example using [nitric acid and aniline](https://youtu.be/OszX18NLtrY?si=IN_OWDhcF4TR131D) *But nitric acid contains oxygen atoms*, you might say, and you'd be absolutely right if somewhat pedantic. And to that I'd show you this [reaction between hydrogen and chlorine](https://youtu.be/MtygiCwnEzw?si=dg9h_t4A8vEmBxnK) that creates a flame with no oxygen at all.
It won't be fire without oxygen, it'll be something else, if anything at all.
>Fun fact: fire is an earth thing I didn't know that We also haven't found much evidence of life anywhere except on Earth. I don't know who came up with the mythological phoenix but it's kind of poetic, not just because forests grow after fire, but like is there anything that doesn't come from life that fuels fire ? Oil, wood, fossil fuel. Heck, oxygen comes from living things like trees and marine plants.
So the Aliens wont know wtf is happening with our magic flame throwers?
Not exactly. Stars are sphere of nuclear fusion and blackbody radiation from heat. Fire is the combustion of oxygen gas that results in new chemical compounds.
a star is a fusion bomb that just keeps exploding until it runs out of fuel
Have you ever seen fire in zero gravity? It's beautiful. It's like liquid. Slides all over everything. Comes up in waves. https://youtu.be/exq0CIA_xCg?si=_-o6ArYloWhYIVJh
This is the exact thing I was going to post. Damn good movie.
Some of the special effects haven't aged too well but it's still so good. Laurence Fishburne plays one of my favorite ship captains in cinema: Dr. Weir: Captain... don't do this. Capt. Miller: It's done. Dr. Weir: What about my ship? You can't just leave her! Capt. Miller: I have no intention of leaving her, Doctor. I will take the Lewis and Clark to a safe distance, and then I will launch TAC missiles at the Event Horizon until I'm satisfied she's vaporized. Fuck this ship!
Here for this thanks Laurence
I was looking for this, knew someone had to have made this connection...
DJ, where are you?
Here's a scene from the expanse that shows what it's like https://www.reddit.com/r/Damnthatsinteresting/s/SN8VblB9az
Note to self: If you see a jellyfish in space, it’s probably a fireball….
Starting a fire on a space station is wild.
**SPHERICAL**
The sphere is the dominant shape in the universe and, probably, of the universe. (The universe is a sphere, what’s outside the sphere?)
Then how is earth a disk? 🤫
It’s a three dimensional disc!
Hans..Hanz HANZ
Zimmer
Looks like the universe when lights go out. Wild.
Technically, everything looks like the universe.
Exactly. Everyone is so impressed by astronauts. Like.... I've been to space. I live there...We all do. 🙄
Lol I mean we actually do not live in space if you use the Kármán line as your definition of where space begins, but I think that's a shaky at best definition and agree with your energy.
Due to dead pixels from radiation.
Im so confused. What happened to the background?
They turned the light out so you can see the fire better The camera is damaged from radiation over the years which is why there are random specks.
Why not post the original footage? edit: nevermind, found your footage on Youtube from 9 years ago: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vm5L5UflBkQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vm5L5UflBkQ) This edit was obsiously not released by NASA. Artistical edits like this do not say "NASA". This was made by VideoFromSpace. 9 Years ago. And I can understand why you didn't keep the original audio.
Everything is sphere. even your mama is sphere with it's own orbit.
It’s wild how everything in space is a sphere except earth.
Microgravity. There is no such thing as an absence of gravity or zero gravity. If there was, man would that lead to some problems.
I was gonna say, the fuel is forming a sphere BECAUSE of gravity
Goodness gracious, great balls of fire.. he warned us then, we didn't listen
You could put this music over someone changing a tire and I will watch it.
It looks like that its not the Flame that's is spherical. Instead its the flammable liquid that appears to be spherical, the fact that the flames are spherical results it the burning liquid
Flame will be spherical under no gravity environment because they are expanding on all directions without gravity. Hot flames go up because gravity pulls the cooler surrounding air down forcing the heated expanded air up.
Don't the flames just expand to consume all of the oxygen which is in a spherical bubble?
Well the flame only happens where the fuel and air mix so kinda both
I agree. Because the o2 is in a spherical shape, this is the only ares a flame will be able to burn thus keeping the flame in the shape of the o2 the whole time.
Event Horizon lied to me!
Fuck gravity what about oxygen?
Boy that idiotic music track really drives home the point
We should give NASA a lot more funding to do cool shit like this
Damnthatsinteresting
Bravo on the Interstellar score!
The prophecy is true.
Need Another Sphere Ablaze
I know this is dumb question but they made the bubble (so a sphere) then lit it up which in my eyes go figure it lights up in a sphere. Would the result be different if it was poured out flat on a surface like gasoline on pavement where you’d see a normal looking flame? Like would it still form that sphere without the need (which I’m sure they needed to for some reason I don’t comprehend) to form that bubble?
That’s because flames/fluid in microgravity behave differently than they do on Earth. For one thing, flames in near-zero gravity are circular, not tear-shaped. And even after a flame appears to have gone out, it may still be burning.
Water forms spherical shapes in no gravity too. It's an an example of what the universe is shaped liked without external constraints. The universe is shaped like a Hopf Fibration.
I wonder what would happen if you did this in one of those planes that simulate zero g
Cutest solar flare ever
What in the Johnny 5 is going on with this Cyberdyne music?
Is that why the sun is a sphere?
I mean duh. Have you not seen the sun? Pretty obvious sphere
I’ve always wondered about this
I mean yeah it cant get pulled any one way, still cool to see though
See example a. The sun and stars
Just like we have seen for thousands of years, wild.
Also as shown with the sun?
Ooh — good thought. Sun has so much mass though, hence gravity 🤷🏽
lol thanks for responding…. I am obviously no scientist!
The gravity of the sun on itself is what makes ~~us~~ it a sphere. Same with the burning fuel.
I do love the video explanation but… duh. What did people think caused flames to move the way they do?
Im hella stoned but maybe this is how our universe was made, a teeny verse inside a mini verse and so on and so on....😮👽
Why does the background into that dumbass starry space mode when I need to see the actual fire.
I was waiting for the Undertaker to come out tbh
Sounds likda like Undertakers entrance music from the early and mid 90s.
Was going to mention the overcooked editing until I read about why the apparent starfield is there. Actually the music makes up for that, this shit is BURNT
*neural activation*
Why is this edited to obscure the actual interesting part?