Fire Burns Differently In Space

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Fire Burns Differently In Space

Posted by timothy on Thursday December 1, 2011 @02:54AM from the half-as-long-twice-as-bright dept.

New submitter black6host writes with this interesting snippet from Space.com: "NASA is playing with fire on the International Space Station — literally. Since March 2009, the space agency's Flame Extinguishment Experiment, or FLEX, has conducted more than 200 tests to better understand how fire behaves in microgravity, which is still not well understood. The research could lead to improved fire suppression systems aboard future spaceships, and it could also have practical benefits here on Earth, scientists said."

146 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

There is no FIRE IN SPACE YOU DUMBA by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-01 02:57 · Score: 5, Funny

Oh my god what are you idiots d
1. Re:There is no FIRE IN SPACE YOU DUMBA by dubsnipe · 2011-12-01 02:59 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Well, as long as there is oxygen around, things should combust.
2. Re:There is no FIRE IN SPACE YOU DUMBA by show+me+altoids · 2011-12-01 03:08 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Yeah, but with no convection to carry away the combustion byproducts and bring in more oxygen, it is much more difficult.
  
  --
  I feel sorry for people that don't drink, because when they get up in the morning, that's as good as they're gonna feel
3. Re:There is no FIRE IN SPACE YOU DUMBA by syousef · 2011-12-01 03:09 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Well, as long as there is oxygen around, things should combust.
  Sure, in a crude way you're right and there are a lot of electricals and combustibles on spacecraft. But HOW does it burn when there is no UP? We're so use to hot air rising that our everyday ideas of how to deal with a fire, like get down low, will not work in space. These are ideas that save lives here but are of no use if a fire were to break out. We can only develop new ideas if we get some direct experimental experience. Also it may lead to an ability to harness the differences inherent in a zero g process for industrial/manufacturing processes (but I'm just speculating here). This is worthwhile basic science.
  
  --
  These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
4. Re:There is no FIRE IN SPACE YOU DUMBA by necro81 · 2011-12-01 03:10 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Which indicates there is a simple and obvious solution for extinguishing a fire in a spacecraft: just vent it out to space. The astronauts can just hold their breath, right?
5. Re:There is no FIRE IN SPACE YOU DUMBA by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-01 03:10 · Score: 0
  
  That's kinda the problem though. Since there is no gravity, there is no thermally induced mass flow. It doesn't matter that hot gas has a lower density: There is no gravity that would cause the denser oxygen rich atmosphere to displace the combustion products. To anthropomorphize the situation: The hot gas wants to rise, but in zero gravity, there is no up.
6. Re:There is no FIRE IN SPACE YOU DUMBA by SebZero · 2011-12-01 03:13 · Score: 0
  
  I find people - as a whole - tend to surround themselves or fill most of their thoracic cavities with a 1/5th mixture of this burn-y oxygen stuff. Wait I'm a dumb-ass and can't work out why this is relevent to humans in space - help me here.
7. Re:There is no FIRE IN SPACE YOU DUMBA by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2011-12-01 03:21 · Score: 1
  
  I bet fires caused by leaking gas or fluid lines, constrained by nothing but the opposition of the escaping material's inertia and the friction of the surrounding atmosphere, are pretty freaky looking though... Unlike on the ground, where the jet of flame eventually rises, if it's sufficiently low-density, or eventually falls on the ground and burns there, if it is a dense-ish liquid of some sort, you'd conceivably end up with a near-perfect expanding cone(preceded by an invisible-but-toxic-and-piping-hot zone of combustion products)...
8. Re:There is no FIRE IN SPACE YOU DUMBA by Dan+East · 2011-12-01 03:24 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  I would think that the worst possible thing (or best possible thing, from Invader Zim's viewpoint) that could happen with a fire in zero G is air flow / turbulence. If there isn't any movement of air, then the oxygen surrounding the fire is consumed and the fire burns very slowly. Since convection currents are a product of gravity, they don't occur in zero G so no fresh O2 is sucked into the fire for combustion as it does here on earth. So I would think anywhere there is an air vent blowing air, or even people just moving around in the environment, you'd have blowtorch like fire forming where the air is disturbed. I bet you could literally see the turbulence in the air as wisps of flame. Kind of disturbing to think of.
  An example of this is in a swimming pool. Have you noticed that if you hold very still in motionless, cold water, that you will begin to feel warmer, but as soon as you move it feels cold again (and no, I'm not talking about heating the pool with your pee). That is because the molecules closest to your body heat up, and since they aren't flowing and being replaced by colder molecules, only conduction takes heat away. It's sort of the same principle with fire in zero-g, where the fuel has consumed the oxygen near it (and it is also surrounded by combustion byproducts as well), so as long as fresh air isn't wafted into it, combustion almost grinds to a halt.
  
  --
  Better known as 318230.
9. Re:There is no FIRE IN SPACE YOU DUMBA by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-01 03:29 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  That's a nice notion. However, there's a wicked problem with the bends. People say "your blood will boil", but that's not actually what happens; the bubbles will be dissolved gasses coming out of solution. even if you go with a straight oxygen environment (which we learned was a "bad idea" in the Apollo program), the oxygen dissolved in the astronaut's blood will come out of solution. Unfortunately, it won't dissolve again very quickly, which will leave you with bubbles in bad places, like the brain and lungs.
  You're also making the assumption that you have enough stored gas (call it air) to repressurize the spacecraft. Even if you live through the depressurization and repressurization, you haven't addressed the source of the fire, which will likely re-ignite. As long as spacecraft are small, gold-plated things, designing to current fire specs is a given. However, as they evolve into large vehicles, designing fire-proofing into everythign will become less and less feasible. People will want to bring clothes and food and shit like that.
  The other major thing to be considered is that while droplets behave differently, we also haven't looked at explosive combustion. I suspect it will be very similar. However, we might find that it's very different. Right now we cover military pilots in polyaramids, and accept that paying passengers are probably going to die in a flash fire. The assumption behind the flight suit is that the pilot's on an O2 mask, and so the lungs will be protected. Flash fires might behave very differently, and fire is a complex, complex beast.
  I've lived through a fire in an airplane, and it's scarry as fuck. Fortuantely, the aerospace community is very aware of it and designs against it.
10. Re:There is no FIRE IN SPACE YOU DUMBA by necro81 · 2011-12-01 03:43 · Score: 2
  
  While I appreciate your thorough analysis of my proposed solution, please keep in mind: I was joking!
11. Re:There is no FIRE IN SPACE YOU DUMBA by cr_nucleus · 2011-12-01 03:44 · Score: 1
  
  But would the temperature difference in itself create some fluid movement ?
12. Re:There is no FIRE IN SPACE YOU DUMBA by MozeeToby · 2011-12-01 03:53 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  It's not as totally and completely insane as it sounds. Generally, people will recover from exposure to vacuum on their own if the exposure is short (less than 30s) and with surprisingly minor injuries if exposure is less than 90s. And that's without training and a warning of what's going to happen, given proper planning and equipment I suspect you could push the survival rate to the high 90%s, maybe even to two 9's.
  Given the choice between burning to death in inescapable zero-g fire and an automated 15 second emergency purge, with a quick re-pressurization system, O2 masks for quicker recovery, and the ability to manage air pressure afterwards to treat the bends... personally, I'd give it a shot. The only real question mark is if the source of the fire has been taken care of. If it's an ongoing short you might find yourself in the same boat you started in, but even that could be addressed by re-pressurizing the spacecraft with nitrogen and relying on O2 masks for the crew until everything is straightened out.
13. Re:There is no FIRE IN SPACE YOU DUMBA by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-01 03:57 · Score: 1
  
  Heat causes the air to expand, but it expands in all directions.
  So you get a bubble of low density CO2 around the fire, but not any movement, because there is no gravity to organize low density air above high density air.
14. Re:There is no FIRE IN SPACE YOU DUMBA by Espresso2xshot · 2011-12-01 03:59 · Score: 1
  
  So from what you're leading to if you see a fire in microgravity and try to run away from it your motion would pull in oxygen and make the flames fly towards you!?
  The more you move the worse the fire gets as you create more convection. Yikes!
  There goes stop drop and roll, would be more like Stop and remain motionless.
15. Re:There is no FIRE IN SPACE YOU DUMBA by LanMan04 · 2011-12-01 04:04 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  People say "your blood will boil", but that's not actually what happens; the bubbles will be dissolved gasses coming out of solution.
  Um, that's the definition of boiling: Dissolved gasses coming out of solution. Can be induced by heating the fluid, lowering the atmospheric pressure, or both.
  
  --
  With the first link, the chain is forged.
16. Re:There is no FIRE IN SPACE YOU DUMBA by Synerg1y · 2011-12-01 04:05 · Score: 1
  
  Reading the heading of the article, I'm surprised they only got around to it now, we use combustion quite a bit as humans and it would be quite useful in space, I also wonder how artificial gravity would affect it considering something like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nautilus-X .
17. Re:There is no FIRE IN SPACE YOU DUMBA by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-01 04:08 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  There's still convection (heat/mass transfer by movement of fluid). Air still moves. The heated gases will expand and flow away from the fire, probably in a not entirely uniform way. And I would imagine that airflow from other sources (ventilators, moving objects) also exists. You don't have the expected convection from hot gases rising, that's why they're looking into how fire works in microgravity, because it works differently.
18. Re:There is no FIRE IN SPACE YOU DUMBA by bberens · 2011-12-01 04:10 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I would be quite shocked to find that there wasn't constant airflow in the space station. It's not going to be a wind tunnel in there but there's going to be constant circulation from temperature control systems, whatever they use to filter the excess CO2 out of the air, etc.
  
  --
  Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
19. Re:There is no FIRE IN SPACE YOU DUMBA by AJH16 · 2011-12-01 04:18 · Score: 2
  
  Just out of curiosity, I wonder if a quick flush would in fact cause the bends if re-compression was prompt. People can operate at pretty low PSI (space suits are 4.3, atmospheric at sea level is 14.7). Would momentary decompression be a large risk if it was brief enough (my personal knowledge of DCS is only in regards to SCUBA which is obviously on the much higher pressure side of things). My understanding was that DCS normally takes a small period of time to develop that might give a window, though I would guess there would be other problems with high speed decompression. A better bet would probably be to do a halon flush with temporary breathing tanks though as it would avoid the whole issue of pressure change.
  
  --
  AJ Henderson
20. Re:There is no FIRE IN SPACE YOU DUMBA by eharvill · 2011-12-01 04:22 · Score: 1
  
  Wouldn't the fire spread outward in all directions equally assuming no air movement? Since it would consume the oxygen next to the source (increasing the flame), which would then consume the oxygen next to it and so on? So maybe expanding out in a sphere, but only the outer edge is actually on fire?
  
  --
  At night I drink myself to sleep and pretend I don't care that you're not here with me
21. Re:There is no FIRE IN SPACE YOU DUMBA by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-01 04:24 · Score: 1
  
  Stopping and remaining motionless puts out my wife's fire also.
22. Re:There is no FIRE IN SPACE YOU DUMBA by stealth_finger · 2011-12-01 04:32 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  There goes stop drop and roll, would be more like Stop and remain motionless.
  Pretend the fire is a T-Rex.
  
  --
  Wanna buy a shirt?
  https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
23. Re:There is no FIRE IN SPACE YOU DUMBA by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-01 04:32 · Score: 0
  
  Easy enough to play around with a GPU - there's been many papers on how to implement basic CFD for flame effects. Just take out the gravity bit, and you still get air vortices due to expansion. Without gravity, heated air can expand in all directions, but when it cools down, it still contracts, then pulling in cold air. Then you get Rayleigh-Bénard convection currents. You can model this at home using a metal tray filled with a thin layer of water, heated lightly using a cooker.
24. Re:There is no FIRE IN SPACE YOU DUMBA by tmosley · 2011-12-01 04:35 · Score: 1
  
  I love it when people don't even accept the premise of the title of the summary, much less RTFA.
25. Re:There is no FIRE IN SPACE YOU DUMBA by Lifyre · 2011-12-01 04:38 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  There is and it was the same with the space shuttles etc... if you lost something there was a good chance you could find it sucked up against in exhaust vent.
  
  --
  I'll meet you at the intersection of "Should be" and "Reality"
26. Re:There is no FIRE IN SPACE YOU DUMBA by tmosley · 2011-12-01 04:38 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Pretty sure boiling means the phase transition between liquid and gas.
27. Re:There is no FIRE IN SPACE YOU DUMBA by show+me+altoids · 2011-12-01 04:42 · Score: 1
  
  Okay, there's no GRAVITATIONAL convection, which is the dominant method that enables fresh oxygen to get to a fire in the earth's atmosphere.
  
  --
  I feel sorry for people that don't drink, because when they get up in the morning, that's as good as they're gonna feel
28. Re:There is no FIRE IN SPACE YOU DUMBA by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-01 04:43 · Score: 0
  
  Um, no it isn't.
  Boiling means the molecules of a substance are changing from liquid into gas. If you boil water, for example, you are not starting with a solution of steam dissolved in water. That statement doesn't make sense. You are just changing the water (which is not a solution if it is pure) from one phase to another.
  Boiling is boiling. Dissolved gasses coming out of solution is entirely different. An example of the latter would be the carbon dioxide bubbles that are released when you open a can of soda.
29. Re:There is no FIRE IN SPACE YOU DUMBA by Bob-taro · 2011-12-01 04:46 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  People say "your blood will boil", but that's not actually what happens; the bubbles will be dissolved gasses coming out of solution.
  Um, that's the definition of boiling: Dissolved gasses coming out of solution. Can be induced by heating the fluid, lowering the atmospheric pressure, or both.
  I'm not sure either of you are right. Boiling is when something changes state from liquid to gas. If you lower pressure enough, your blood (the water in it anyway) would literally boil at room temperature. However, decompression sickness - gases coming out of solution - is a different phenomenon that would probably happen first (at a higher pressure).
  
  --
  Prov 9:8 Do not rebuke mockers or they will hate you; rebuke the wise and they will love you.
30. Re:There is no FIRE IN SPACE YOU DUMBA by gl4ss · 2011-12-01 04:48 · Score: 2
  
  I'm just going wtf is this news of 2011?
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flame#Flames_in_microgravity
  I'm pretty sure I saw a similar picture in some book, magazine or something before 2000 too though. it's such an obvious experiment...
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
31. Re:There is no FIRE IN SPACE YOU DUMBA by mr1911 · 2011-12-01 04:48 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Okay, there's no GRAVITATIONAL convection, which is the dominant method that enables fresh oxygen to get to a fire in the earth's atmosphere.
  Don't tell that to fires. Fires often create their own convection due to a variety of factors.
  
  --
  This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
  Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
32. Re:There is no FIRE IN SPACE YOU DUMBA by slim · 2011-12-01 04:48 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, I know you were only being flippant, but...
  There's a reason scuba divers are told to *never* hold their breath. If you don't release pressure from your lungs as the ambient pressure decreases (when diving, by ascending), you'll do catastrophic damage to your lungs.
33. Re:There is no FIRE IN SPACE YOU DUMBA by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-01 04:53 · Score: 0
  
  Yes the standing still would be a case of natural convection, any movement in the water surrounding them would be a case of forced convection.
34. Re:There is no FIRE IN SPACE YOU DUMBA by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-01 04:56 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  You require 3 things to keep a conventional fire going. Heat, fuel, and oxygen. The fire would not spread outwards unless there was fuel to burn as well. The same was that a campfire doesn't just keep spreading outwards away from the fire pit, since all the wood (fuel) is in the pit. Now if you were to spill a container of oil or other combustible liquid inside the space station, and then set it on fire. Now the fire could theoretically spread outwards in all directions as the liquid also spread outwards.
  On Earth, most fire suppression systems work on removing the heat and to some extent oxygen from the fire triangle. We use compressed CO2, which cools the area as it expands while also displacing some of the oxygen. Or by dousing it with a lot of water, which again cools the surrounding area and displaces some of the oxygen with steam.
  In a space station, I think the easiest way to stop a fire would be to vent the atmosphere since removing the oxygen would kill the fire right away. Though the downside is that humans also require oxygen so it'd kill any crew members in that section as well (Assuming they weren't in protective suits).
35. Re:There is no FIRE IN SPACE YOU DUMBA by snowgirl · 2011-12-01 05:00 · Score: 2
  
  People say "your blood will boil", but that's not actually what happens; the bubbles will be dissolved gasses coming out of solution.
  Um, that's the definition of boiling: Dissolved gasses coming out of solution. Can be induced by heating the fluid, lowering the atmospheric pressure, or both.
  Boiling is actually the transition of the liquid into a gas, not gasses dissolved in the liquid coming out of solution. They look incredibly similar, but boiling can happen with a pure liquid, while dissolved gasses kind of by definition cannot come out of solution in a pure liquid. (Yes, the liquid turns to a gas and then kind of dissolves itself in the liquid, but it turns out that a gaseous form of a substance dissolved in the liquid form of that same substance is indistinguishable from the liquid itself.)
  So, on the first hand, the meaning of "boiling blood" means blood, wherein the liquid medium itself is actually turning into a gas, and thus generating gaseous bubbles, while blood with the gasses coming out of solution is itself not turning into a gas... (the later happening at lower temps, and higher pressures than the former.)
  
  --
  WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
36. Re:There is no FIRE IN SPACE YOU DUMBA by The_Crisis · 2011-12-01 05:00 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  So you get a bubble of low density CO2 around the fire, but not any movement
  That's correct, except for the parts where it's backwards and/or wrong. The heat given off as the product of combustion should increase the pressure of CO (and/or other products of combustion) (see: Charles' Law) which we are guessing would radiate away in all directions. That pressure increase should cause airflow from the area of higher pressure to the area of lower pressure (see: Wind). So (totally guessing/hypothesizing here) it seems to me that the heat generated as a result of combustion would increase the pressure and cause airflow away from the center of the combustion source which would prevent much if any O2-rich air from circulating, in effect choking itself out.
  
  --
  "It is a fine line between lazy and efficient."
37. Re:There is no FIRE IN SPACE YOU DUMBA by X0563511 · 2011-12-01 05:08 · Score: 1
  
  Yea, I think donning a breathing apparatus and flushing the atmosphere with something inert would be better. It would also give you more of a chance of recovering what was still viable in that atmosphere.
  You'd have to make sure it was a closed breather though, else the exhaust would just serve to provide oxidizer.
  
  --
  For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
38. Re:There is no FIRE IN SPACE YOU DUMBA by blackanvil · 2011-12-01 05:19 · Score: 2
  
  "You're also making the assumption that you have enough stored gas (call it air) to repressurize the spacecraft." Since the pressure on a space station 1atm (according to wikipedia, at least), you could depressurize to 1/10th that, low enough to squelch combustion, by using a giant hefty bag out in space to hold it until the fire's out, then pump it back in. Ok, a giant heatproof hefty bag that can hold in 1/10th atm.
39. Re:There is no FIRE IN SPACE YOU DUMBA by Nate_weather_guy · 2011-12-01 05:26 · Score: 0
  
  The temperature and pressure at which water boils are interrelated. If you access a "steam table" from an engineering thermodynamics textbook, look at a table entitled "properties of saturated water, temperature table," you will find an entry called "saturation pressure." That is the pressure at which water boils at that temperature. If you look at something near your body temperature, say, 38 degrees C, the pressure is about 0.066 bars (or about .066 atmospheres). If you are in the upper atmosphere or in space with no pressurized suit and the pressure is below 0.066 atmospheres, your blood will boil.
  This is not a complete answer to this question, however. There are concerns about bubbles of nitrogen ("the bends") due to rapid depressurization, etc. that also need to be addressed.
  
  --
  For lack of a better sig, this one has to do.
40. Re:There is no FIRE IN SPACE YOU DUMBA by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-01 05:28 · Score: 1
  
  The reason a flame rises on Earth is because of the very slight pressure difference between the bottom of the flame and the top. There is negligible lateral pressure differences, so the flame is roughly cylindrically symmetric. As the OP says, this is indirectly due to gravitational acceleration (though the gravitational field is essentially the same in LEO).
  This is why you see an almost spherical flame in space. The pressure is approximately equal all around it and the flame expands outwards.
41. Re:There is no FIRE IN SPACE YOU DUMBA by TheThiefMaster · 2011-12-01 05:30 · Score: 1
  
  No, boiling is the substance itself becoming gaseous.
42. Re:There is no FIRE IN SPACE YOU DUMBA by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-01 05:31 · Score: 0
  
  in this context, i don't think the phrase "your blood will boil" was ever intended to be technically correct or scientifically accurate. i believe the phrase was intended to convey how bad the situation is, how bad the situation will feel, and how deadly the situation is. in short, "your blood will boil" is intended to convey "you will hurt like a mutha-fscker and die".
43. Re:There is no FIRE IN SPACE YOU DUMBA by Galestar · 2011-12-01 05:42 · Score: 0
  
  I lol'd
  
  --
  AccountKiller
44. Re:There is no FIRE IN SPACE YOU DUMBA by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-01 05:44 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  If I remember right: ISS, MIR... are/were very noisy because everything electronic has to be cooled by forced convection (fans). Without natural convection even a low powered circuit board that would easily dissipate the heat on Earth could eventually overheat in zero G as the heated air just sits there next to the components.
45. Re:There is no FIRE IN SPACE YOU DUMBA by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-01 06:02 · Score: 0
  
  I actually hate that. Willful ignorance should be a fine-able offence.
  But I get that you jest.
46. Re:There is no FIRE IN SPACE YOU DUMBA by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-01 06:05 · Score: 0
  
  your mom has a penis.
47. Re:There is no FIRE IN SPACE YOU DUMBA by izomiac · 2011-12-01 06:06 · Score: 1
  
  It seems like simple diffusion should provide enough oxygen to feed a fire. Oxygen should flow from an area of higher partial pressure to an area of lower, as should the CO2 flow away from the fire. The gases shouldn't be forming bubbles, that goes against entropy and would make it impossible for humans to breath (we're effectively slow burning fires ourselves). In a swimming pool, water will form a hydration shell and interact with our skin, so that's a bit different.
48. Re:There is no FIRE IN SPACE YOU DUMBA by AJH16 · 2011-12-01 06:15 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, now that I think about it more, since there is no convection, you might be able to just use a halon extinguisher. Using a dense gas to push out the oxygen in the immediate area should be sufficient without requiring a full flush of the atmosphere. The clean up might be a little tricky after and breathing apparatus would still be a very good idea, but it could save energy which is at a premium in space.
  
  --
  AJ Henderson
49. Re:There is no FIRE IN SPACE YOU DUMBA by Guppy · 2011-12-01 06:30 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  If you don't release pressure from your lungs as the ambient pressure decreases (when diving, by ascending), you'll do catastrophic damage to your lungs.
  Not holding your breath in a vacuum presents another problem though. Gas exchange in your lungs is a passive process, driven by concentration gradients. As the partial pressure of O2 in your alveoli drops to zero, the diffusion goes into reverse; blood passing through your lungs actually has its remaining oxygen content sucked out, causing you to black out almost instantly.
50. Re:There is no FIRE IN SPACE YOU DUMBA by a+whoabot · 2011-12-01 06:47 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  What you, grandparent, and great-grandparent have overlooked is just how inveterate motion is. Matter is always in motion above zero degrees Kelvin. The environment of the space station is going to be around room temperature, well above 0K, meaning lots of atomic motion. The molecules of this CO2 "bubble" will quickly disperse as they follow down their concentration gradient. Conversely, molecules of O2 will quickly reach the flame as they follow down their concentration gradient. The astronauts could stop oxygen from getting to the flame by sealing it, but not by staying very still.
51. Re:There is no FIRE IN SPACE YOU DUMBA by Dadoo · 2011-12-01 07:06 · Score: 1
  
  Slightly off topic, but I read a book, a long time ago, about a space station in low earth orbit. In the book, there were a few paragraphs that discussed what might happen to a fire in micro-gravity. When a teacher lit a match, it burned with a spherical flame, and put it self out quickly, because there was no place for the CO2 to go. If you wanted the match to continue burning, you had to keep it moving.
  The book was science fiction, but it would be interesting to find out if they were correct.
  
  --
  Sit, Ubuntu, sit. Good dog.
52. Re:There is no FIRE IN SPACE YOU DUMBA by Opyros · 2011-12-01 07:19 · Score: 1
  
  Possibly Arthur C. Clarke's Islands in the Sky?
53. Re:There is no FIRE IN SPACE YOU DUMBA by camperdave · 2011-12-01 07:22 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Islands in the Sky by Arthur C. Clarke. A kid wins a contest and wins a trip to a space station as the prize. While on board he learns about microgravity environments, and due to an emergency, gets to travel to various other stations (a Zero G hospital, a communications station, a space hotel). A good, light read.
  
  --
  When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
54. Re:There is no FIRE IN SPACE YOU DUMBA by findoutmoretoday · 2011-12-01 07:44 · Score: 1
  
  <quote>Yeah, but with no convection ... it is much more difficult.</quote> Or more easy, excessive cooling by convection is one of the main problems to start a new fire.
55. Re:There is no FIRE IN SPACE YOU DUMBA by carpefishus · 2011-12-01 07:49 · Score: 1
  
  You were joking but got close. Put the people on canned air and reduce the partial pressure of O2 until the flame dies. You can reduce the partial pressure of O2 a number of ways; reducing the over all pressure (your suggestion but not so far as vacuum);substitution of O2 with a gas that not only reduces O2 but futzes with the fire chemical reaction; chemically absorb the O2.
  
  --
  Facts take all of the premium out of arm waving - T. Reynolds
56. Re:There is no FIRE IN SPACE YOU DUMBA by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-01 08:22 · Score: 1
  
  Well, actually, they really can, but they better don't hold their breath!
57. Re:There is no FIRE IN SPACE YOU DUMBA by findoutmoretoday · 2011-12-01 08:34 · Score: 1
  
  <quote>If you are in the upper atmosphere or in space with no pressurized suit and the pressure is below 0.066 atmospheres, your blood will boil.</quote> But as your diastolic blood pressure is more than 0.066 atmosphere, boiling water in the blood is not a problem. Boiling water in the lungs is another story, but here again when lacking oxygen the best way to survive is to cool down very fast and that's what will happen. You just need an expert team for reanimation.
58. Re:There is no FIRE IN SPACE YOU DUMBA by Em+Adespoton · 2011-12-01 08:39 · Score: 1
  
  The trick may be to spray with something not so inert as halon... say, nitrogen. You may end up with some nitrous oxide as a byproduct, but it should be something that can isolate the burn and be easily scrubbed/diluted into the atmosphere after the fact. Add a bit of vanilla to the gas as a warning that you're entering a nitrogen-high zone before the fans have mixed it back into the system.
59. Re:There is no FIRE IN SPACE YOU DUMBA by syousef · 2011-12-01 10:13 · Score: 2
  
  There goes stop drop and roll, would be more like Stop and remain motionless.
  Pretend the fire is a T-Rex.
  What ever happened to sending a urine bubble straight at it!? No imagination you guys!
  
  --
  These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
60. Re:There is no FIRE IN SPACE YOU DUMBA by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-01 10:24 · Score: 0
  
  Actually if you did it right crew would survive. The guy who pulled the switch might get strangled for the discomfort though. There is no explosive decompression.
61. Re:There is no FIRE IN SPACE YOU DUMBA by AvitarX · 2011-12-01 10:40 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think that's true.
  I've always took boiling to mean the liquid itself was converting to gas, this can happen in low pressure at room temperature, but is not the cause of the bends from diving. A vented space-station could cause it I imagine, though perhaps the skin would keep blood pressure high enough to keep the boiling point of water above room temperature.
  I'd be worried about eyeballs falling out.
  
  --
  Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
62. Re:There is no FIRE IN SPACE YOU DUMBA by mikael · 2011-12-01 10:45 · Score: 1
  
  Assuming you had a perfectly spherical object burning evenly. Some easy to consider examples down on Earth are the hazards of igniting powders like coal dust and flour, hazards in coal mines and traditional windmills. These would cause explosions simply because of the small particle size and rapid oxidisation. No need to consider gravity, as Brownian motion of air molecules compensate for the force of gravity.
  A large burning object like a candle or one of those jumbo matchsticks would probably spin around if not propel itself a bit like a rocket.
  
  --
  Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
63. Re:There is no FIRE IN SPACE YOU DUMBA by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-01 12:05 · Score: 0
  
  There may still be formation of convection cells on something burning in micro-gravity. Unless you get perfectly uniform heating of a surface, there will be hot and cold spots. Think of how a pot of boiling water has some areas forming bubbles (hot spots) while an area nearby doesn't. However in space, that effect would radiate in all directions from the surface of whatever's hot. Any convection cell which forms may provide enough difference in pressure compared to the cooler adjacent region(s) which may be enough to draw in more air for combustion.
  Thus the experiments.
  Maybe they should also do a micro-gravity "lava-lamp" experiment with the heat source located in the center of a glass sphere? Seems like it would relate to this.
64. Re:There is no FIRE IN SPACE YOU DUMBA by Svartormr · 2011-12-01 13:00 · Score: 1
  
  Yes there is. :) http://en.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Fire_in_Space
65. Re:There is no FIRE IN SPACE YOU DUMBA by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-01 13:26 · Score: 0
  
  Assume a spherical cow on fire in space....
66. Re:There is no FIRE IN SPACE YOU DUMBA by dbIII · 2011-12-01 14:37 · Score: 1
  
  The molecules don't change at all. They just get a lot further apart from each other.
67. Re:There is no FIRE IN SPACE YOU DUMBA by giorgist · 2011-12-01 15:43 · Score: 1
  
  Tell that to the sun
68. Re:There is no FIRE IN SPACE YOU DUMBA by WillAdams · 2011-12-01 15:54 · Score: 1
  
  Hal Clement had that scene in his short story ``Fireproof'' which was published in the collection _Space Lash_ / _Small Changes_.
  
  --
  Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
69. Re:There is no FIRE IN SPACE YOU DUMBA by sjames · 2011-12-01 19:30 · Score: 1
  
  On Earth, the dominant form is thermal/gravitational convection. That won't be very active at all on ISS. As stated in TFA, diffusion becomes the dominant mechanism.
70. Re:There is no FIRE IN SPACE YOU DUMBA by XrayJunkie · 2011-12-01 19:43 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe they find a way to hear cool explosion sounds in space, too. That would be awesome!
71. Re:There is no FIRE IN SPACE YOU DUMBA by slim · 2011-12-01 23:11 · Score: 1
  
  Conclusion: being in a vacuum will kill you.
72. Re:There is no FIRE IN SPACE YOU DUMBA by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-02 00:26 · Score: 0
  
  your mom has a penis.
  Lord Gaga of Yonkers? Me like it!
73. Re:There is no FIRE IN SPACE YOU DUMBA by sayno2quat · 2011-12-02 02:41 · Score: 1
  
  (Yes, the liquid turns to a gas and then kind of dissolves itself in the liquid, but it turns out that a gaseous form of a substance dissolved in the liquid form of that same substance is indistinguishable from the liquid itself.)
  This sounds interesting. Do you have a wiki or other link I can go to? I'd enjoy reading about this.
  
  --
  Sure I sold you robot insurance. But you were attacked by a cyborg. Not covered.
74. Re:There is no FIRE IN SPACE YOU DUMBA by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-02 19:51 · Score: 0
  
  In a space station, I think the easiest way to stop a fire would be to vent the atmosphere since removing the oxygen would kill the fire right away.
  
  Good way to get rid of bedbugs too. Also quick alternative to dusting the furniture.
75. Re:There is no FIRE IN SPACE YOU DUMBA by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-05 22:27 · Score: 0
  
  Oh my god what are you idiots d
  they want to create it first and then douse it :) typical of our politicans
In case of fire: by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-01 03:09 · Score: 1

DO open the window.
1. Re:In case of fire: by ledow · 2011-12-01 03:16 · Score: 2
  
  Hold your breath first, though.
  Seriously, fire on board something like that would be about the scariest thing to deal with. With loss of air or something, you don't have time to panic but if the fires are burning at 100th their normal rate but are large enough to be pretty much unextinguishable, you've got a lot of fighting to do before you eventually end up burning.
  It'll get into every possible escape route and keep following you, it'll slowly suck up all fuel everywhere (can't just "move stuff away" if the *fire* is floating about), it'll be unpredictable and hard to tell when it's gone out, and it'll get into everything. And you're in a confined tin that you're relying on staying all in one piece to get back home at any point.
  The question is: why haven't we researched this more already?
2. Re:In case of fire: by 2fuf · 2011-12-01 03:29 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  relevant: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSqOqRACxUM (fire at the MIR station)
3. Re:In case of fire: by JasterBobaMereel · 2011-12-01 04:37 · Score: 1
  
  ..also known as the Russians got there first... as with most things in space
  they have done a lot of research on space stations already, they did send up 7 of them, have one manned for 10 years ... and built quite a significant proportion of the ISS ...
  The rest of the world have so far built 2 space stations, one is the ISS, jointly with Russia ...
  
  --
  Puteulanus fenestra mortis
4. Re:In case of fire: by EdZ · 2011-12-01 05:19 · Score: 1
  
  Hold your breath first, though.
  Do NOT hold your breath in the case of sudden decompression. Rapid decompression is entirely survivable if you're recompressed within a minute or two, but holding your breath results in some very nasty damage to your lungs (essentially, your alveoli burst) that would not otherwise occur if you exhaled.
5. Re:In case of fire: by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-01 10:10 · Score: 0
  
  Had you included an exhale you might have been awarded a five. Fortress2 is the best example of a studio interpretation of this happening outer space and you can pick up why they were wrong.
To quote Miller from Event Horizon by iB1 · 2011-12-01 03:15 · Score: 1

"Have you ever seen fire in zero gravity? It's beautiful. It's like liquid it... slides all over everything. Comes up in waves." I know it's not the same thing, but it reminded me of that film that I haven't watched in a while...
1. Re:To quote Miller from Event Horizon by LanMan04 · 2011-12-01 04:01 · Score: 1
  
  I absolutely love that movie. Sam Neil is one creepy dude (also see: In the Mouth of Madness).
  
  --
  With the first link, the chain is forged.
2. Re:To quote Miller from Event Horizon by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-01 12:14 · Score: 0
  
  Came for that quote, left satisfied.
Don't Yank our Funding by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-01 03:16 · Score: 0

I always read statements like "and it could also have practical benefits here on Earth" as "and please don't yank our funding." I agree that everything done on the space station has the potential to help us out here on earth, but I'd be curious if anyone has any idea what the practical benefits of this experiment could be.
1. Re:Don't Yank our Funding by bmo · 2011-12-01 03:23 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  but I'd be curious if anyone has any idea what the practical benefits of this experiment could be.
  Without basic science, you don't get applied science.
  I sure wish the know-nothing "hurr why study fruit flies? hurr!" idiots would fucking understand this.
  But no. They get in their cars and drive, use computers, talk on cellphones, dance at the club to kilowatts of audio, eat, drink, and be merry and then decry the amount of money we spend on basic science to make all that possible.
  Don't like money spent on basic science? Go live in a yurt.
  --
  BMO
2. Re:Don't Yank our Funding by Tekfactory · 2011-12-01 03:51 · Score: 2
  
  I don't know if this is still part of it, but somewhere years back I read that NASA was planning on experimenting with different types of water spraying nozzels on the ISS, IIRC there was a micro-nozzle that sprayed a mist using substantially less water than a regular nozzle and the mist put out fires more effectively than gallons of water in a narrow stream.
  Those interested can Google Fine Water Mist and Fire, they did some microgravity testing on a KC-135.
3. Re:Don't Yank our Funding by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-01 04:03 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Don't like money spent on basic science? Go live in a yurt.
  We all know what a yurt is, but the types that you are referring this question to will laugh at you thinking you can't live inside a yogurt...
4. Re:Don't Yank our Funding by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-01 04:24 · Score: 0
  
  >
  Don't like money spent on basic science? Go live in a yurt.
  --
  BMO
  What you mean I got give fruit to Yang so he can eat while he study whether black yak felt make better yurt than white yak felt? White yak felt good enough for dad, and he live to be 27! No steal my stuff with your "taxes" trick! It MY stuff! MY Stuff! No Steal My Stuff! Urgh! (dies with spear in gut).
5. Re:Don't Yank our Funding by b4dc0d3r · 2011-12-01 04:37 · Score: 1
  
  Thank your for the word of the day, "yurt". I will incorporate it into future posts, such as "May the tension bands of your yurt give way whilst you are standing beside them, such that you are struck in the face with great and unexpected force" and "May your yurt burn down and consume you as you sleep" and "Yo momma lives in a yurt".
6. Re:Don't Yank our Funding by JasterBobaMereel · 2011-12-01 04:38 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  One day sir, you may tax it. - Faraday's reply to William Gladstone, then British Chancellor of the Exchequer (minister of finance), when asked of the practical value of electricity (1850)
  
  --
  Puteulanus fenestra mortis
7. Re:Don't Yank our Funding by tmosley · 2011-12-01 04:47 · Score: 1
  
  You do know that we went from the founding of this country to 1913 without an income tax, right? Contrary to the popular meme, taxes!=civilization, nor do they buy it. Indeed, the great Khans, who were the opposite of civilized, loved taxes. Apropos to the yurt comment.
8. Re:Don't Yank our Funding by circletimessquare · 2011-12-01 04:52 · Score: 1
  
  you are making me so angry for opposing my ignorant ideology that i am forced to rant in reply to you using this microprocesser based computer which will transmit the information over fiber optics which will appear on your lcd screen. god gave us those things, you evil sorcerer
  
  --
  intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
9. Re:Don't Yank our Funding by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-01 05:20 · Score: 0
  
  I have to assume by 'the founding of this country', you mean the statehood of Arizona in 1912? Because otherwise, you'd be wrong - income tax was imposed intermittently before that - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States . It's irrelevant anyway, since there were plenty of other taxes.
10. Re:Don't Yank our Funding by tburkhol · 2011-12-01 05:23 · Score: 1
  
  TFA indicates that the heptane fuel continues to combust after the flames are extinguished. That seems pretty inconsistent with at least my understanding of "combustion" and a pretty good start for some basic research with potential application. eg: if you can burn a lump of coal without a flame - convert the carbons to carbon dioxide without mucking with the sulfur, thorium, and other elements in the coal, coal would be a much more attractive fuel.
11. Re:Don't Yank our Funding by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-01 06:21 · Score: 0
  
  Your comment is offensive to those of us in the filed of yurt science.
12. Re:Don't Yank our Funding by tmosley · 2011-12-01 06:32 · Score: 1
  
  I see, so you are saying that the United States was only civilized during the Civil War, and somewhat in 1894 (when the top 10% of earners was taxed at 2 whole percent), and then descended back into barbarism in 1895 when the tax was found to be unconstitutional? You know, where there were no other income taxes other than those two?
13. Re:Don't Yank our Funding by Monchanger · 2011-12-01 07:24 · Score: 1
  
  What on Earth are you talking about? The Khans built a very impressive civilization with those taxes. They may not have been what we today call "civil", but neither were the Romans who couldn't manage the empire we modeled our nation after without their gladiators and slaves.
  Besides the civil/civilization mix-up, you're also confused about the difference between taxation in general and the income tax as one of the many methods of collecting taxes. We've always had taxes. Remember that little Tea Party thing? That was about taxes collected to fund the British Empire. Now if you have a better way of building a civilization without the use of funds collected from private citizens or organizations, by all means, we're waiting.
  Didn't we just have a story about how Ron Paul's supporters were the same kind of blind followers as Republicans and Democrats? Thanks for the wonderful example.
  PS- be careful throwing that 'meme' word around as an insult when that's all you have to bring to a conversation.
14. Re:Don't Yank our Funding by Opyros · 2011-12-01 07:27 · Score: 1
  
  But income tax != all taxes. America has always had taxes of some sort (remember, Ben Franklin said they were the only certain thing in life besides death) and civilization by most definitions would indeed be impossible without taxation.
15. Re:Don't Yank our Funding by camperdave · 2011-12-01 07:29 · Score: 1
  
  One day sir, you may tax it.
  Well! There goes the internet.
  
  --
  When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
16. Re:Don't Yank our Funding by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-01 08:06 · Score: 0
  
  but neither were the Romans who couldn't manage the empire we modeled our nation after without their gladiators and slaves.
  you didn't go to history class?
17. Re:Don't Yank our Funding by mcgrew · 2011-12-01 08:26 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  You do know that we went from the founding of this country to 1913 without an income tax, right?
  There was no income tax, but there was taxation. My grandfather was 17 years old in 1913. Few know (as far as I can tell) that when the federal income tax was enacted, only the rich were taxed.
  The tax was to pay for a war, which is pretty much where most of your federal income taxes go anyway.
  Without income taxes you would not have the interstate highway system (which, incidentally, was built by a Republican administration). I was a little kid when they started building it, and I remember that getting from St Louis to Springfield was a three or four hour drive, vs the hour and a half (or less) on the interstate.
  Without federal income taxes you would not have the hoover dam. Americans would not have landed on the moon. America wouldn't have been able to reap the financial winfall of rebuilding Europe after WWII.
  The only downside to taxes is that you're a greedy selfish money grubber. Since you seem to be a tea party type, you probably consider yourself to be a Christian (hint: there are no Christians in the Tea Party, it is definitely against everything Jesus taught), you might want to open that bible you like to thump and read Matthew 22:21.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
18. Re:Don't Yank our Funding by SleazyRidr · 2011-12-01 09:07 · Score: 1
  
  Read the final sentence of the post to which you are replying. You clearly didn't read it before posting, and you may find it educational.
  
  --
  Is 1563649 a prime number?
19. Re:Don't Yank our Funding by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-01 09:14 · Score: 0
  
  That's still ascribing more civility to the US than most of us do.
20. Re:Don't Yank our Funding by mikael · 2011-12-01 10:52 · Score: 1
  
  There was this inventor guy who proposed a new fire extinguisher for cars - it basically vaporized water into a fine mist that smothered flames by reducing the oxygen levels, rather than trying to cover every burning surface with a layer of water. Maybe that's where he ended up working.
  
  --
  Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
21. Re:Don't Yank our Funding by tmosley · 2011-12-02 13:48 · Score: 1
  
  Nope. I have done the research. Prior to 1913, the US government spent on average well under 5% of GDP (with the median around 2.5%, it was higher during wartime). Today it is 40%, and the lowest spending of any current nation other than stateless Somalia is something like 10%.
  
  Don't think for a second that spending then was anywhere near what it was now, even adjusted for inflation.
22. Re:Don't Yank our Funding by SleazyRidr · 2011-12-03 04:44 · Score: 1
  
  While everything you just said may indeed be true, it says nothing about whether or not there was an income tax in the USA between 1776 and 1913.
  You made a boo-boo and got called out on it. Take it like a man.
  
  --
  Is 1563649 a prime number?
23. Re:Don't Yank our Funding by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-09 11:09 · Score: 0
  
  We all know what a yurt is, but the types that you are referring this question to will laugh at you thinking you can't live inside a yogurt...
  That's what you think. Don't knock it until you've tried it.
Hal Clements did a neat story on that by WillAdams · 2011-12-01 03:18 · Score: 2

``Fireproof'' I think it was, in his collection _Space Lash (formerly published as _Small Changes_)_.
Looks like his theorization on the science was good (as it usually is).
That book, and The Mad Scientists Club books made a huge impact in my childhood.

--
Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-01 03:19 · Score: 2, Insightful

Why does everything have to be some stupid ass acronym?
1. Re:Why? by N0Man74 · 2011-12-01 03:24 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Are you referring to the WDEHTBSSAA effect?
2. Re:Why? by CubicleView · 2011-12-01 03:31 · Score: 1
  
  Agreed, SAAs (Stupid Ass Acronyms) should be banned.
3. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-01 04:49 · Score: 0
  
  You should join the SAAsSBBC.
Obligatory by mattie_p · 2011-12-01 03:21 · Score: 5, Funny

Screaming is different, too, from what I've heard. Or did I?
Slow burns are a safety concern... by SomeoneGotMyNick · 2011-12-01 03:22 · Score: 1

There is an increased risk of singed cheek hair on the members of the 200 Mile High Blue Flamer's Club.
What's the big deal? by smooth+wombat · 2011-12-01 03:25 · Score: 4, Funny

We all know what to do if a fire breaks out in a spaceship or station. Didn't you people watch Red Planet?
You grab your fire extinguisher, point it at the fire, release the locking pin, pull the handle and get propelled across the room due to no gravity holding you in place and the fire retardant being ejected from the nozzle
Come on you geeks, get with the program!

--
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
1. Re:What's the big deal? by ravnous · 2011-12-01 03:59 · Score: 1
  
  Or WALL-E?
  
  --
  When does this happen in the movie?
2. Re:What's the big deal? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-01 14:10 · Score: 0
  
  After I watched the Moon Landing in 1969, I put-off the other Sci-Fi thrillers from NASA. It wasn't until I read a book-journal of one Lieutenant Ripley whom fought off both aliens and fire and hostile military by simply opening the airlock of her ship's cargo door to allow the intelligent design of pressure imbalance to suck her problems out into the vaccum of space.
  Speaking of which, if ever we found a way to create matter, does anything think it will be possible to discharge the vaccuum of space by creating oxygen and nitrogen and carbon dioxide? How will a black hole travel around if there was no vaccuum of space, and on what relative gravity would all the galaxy descend upon if not floating in the vaccuum of space? There must be a relative surface plan somewhere that the galaxy is flying above.
  Red Planet was more about ET relations more than it was about space travel. Much more important than the simulations done by NASA.
Microgravity, not Space by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-01 03:38 · Score: 0

Remember the fire triangle: fuel, heat, oxygen. I wouldn't imagine space providing enough oxygen to sustain a fire, and space is depicted as being cold. Conditions within our crafts (and the ISS) are a different matter. Our crafts carry oxygen to support crew. So, the real issue is how does fire behave in microgravity.
1. Re:Microgravity, not Space by X0563511 · 2011-12-01 05:27 · Score: 1
  
  Which, if you read the fucking summary, is exactly what is being asked.
  
  --
  For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Great Stuff NASA by Grindalf · 2011-12-01 03:41 · Score: 0

Don't mix pure oxygen and Vaseline, that is my top tip for a white hot hypergolic reaction. Many other materials are hypergolic as well, including may fatty foods ...

--
The purpose of existence is to make money.
Wise choice of acronym by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-01 03:50 · Score: 1

Because FLEE would have been too unfortunate for a Space Station.
Ob "benefits here on earth" debunking by Rogerborg · 2011-12-01 04:06 · Score: 4, Funny

If you're trapped in a free-falling elevator, whether it's on fire or not is probably the least (or briefest) of your worries.

--
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Really? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-01 04:12 · Score: 0

They needed a study to figure this out? Likely, our tax dollars will be spent to figure out the rotational force produced by a sneeze. Didn't anyone think of this in the past 30 years of space travel? o.0
1. Re:Really? by gl4ss · 2011-12-01 04:51 · Score: 1
  
  They needed a study to figure this out? Likely, our tax dollars will be spent to figure out the rotational force produced by a sneeze. Didn't anyone think of this in the past 30 years of space travel? o.0
  yeah they forgot what they did 10 years ago there..
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
How about M-80s by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-01 04:56 · Score: 0

Do they blow up army men the same?
slashtards? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-01 05:45 · Score: 0

But you took the time to write that... ;)
Cruel Irony by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-01 05:52 · Score: 0

space fire got him before he could finish his last sentence
Decommissioned Shuttles.... by TommyGunnRX · 2011-12-01 06:13 · Score: 2

If the DoD was involved they could just launch a decommissioned space shuttle and set it ablaze... Then when it falls back to earth market it as a chance to win a piece of the shuttle! Talk about a great PR move!
finally! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-01 06:15 · Score: 0

one has to ask .. after all this time:"how many billions dollars does it need to extinguish a fire in zero gravity?"
sheesh, after discovering fire thousands of years ago after climbing down from trees, one would expect this would be
like .. duh .. the first experiment one would do in outerspace?
1. Re:finally! by camperdave · 2011-12-01 07:46 · Score: 2
  
  one has to ask .. after all this time:"how many billions dollars does it need to extinguish a fire in zero gravity?" sheesh, after discovering fire thousands of years ago after climbing down from trees, one would expect this would be like .. duh .. the first experiment one would do in outerspace?
  I think fire was discovered long before we climbed down from the trees. In fact, it may have been an impetus for climbing down from the tree.
  
  --
  When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Our tax dollars hard at work... by wiseachoo · 2011-12-01 09:37 · Score: 1

Our tax dollars hard at work, fostering galactic pyromaniacs. Where can I opt out my hard earned cash?
1. Re:Our tax dollars hard at work... by c6gunner · 2011-12-01 13:24 · Score: 1
  
  Our tax dollars hard at work, fostering galactic pyromaniacs. Where can I opt out my hard earned cash?
  Try here:
  http://www.farecompare.com/flights/New_York-NYC/Abu_Dhabi-AUH/market.html
  Just make sure you click the "one way" radio-button.
  Good luck!
This definitely provides relevant research by Y.A.A.P. · 2011-12-01 09:44 · Score: 0

This kind of experimentation provides research to something relevant to all of us, namely the Sun. It's something that very few people put any intense thought into, but is very important to us. There's also quite a bit about it that is not understood and every little bit helps, due to our dependence on its existence and how various unusual and not-well-understood (or not understood at all) phenomena can affect us.
Two quotes from the article stand out to me:
First:
"In space, molecular diffusion draws oxygen to the flame and combustion products away from the flame at a rate 100 times slower than the buoyant flow on Earth"
Talk about a slow burn...
When one considers that less than 2% of the Sun is something other than Hydrogen and Helium, and Oxygen being only another chunk of that 2% with other elements having their chunks of that respective small percentage, that quote gives us considerable insight into why the Sun and other stars burn for as long as we believe they do.
Second:
"Thus far, the most surprising thing we've observed is continued apparent burning of heptane droplets after flame extinction under certain conditions. Currently, this is entirely unexplained"
With that perspective, I wonder what unusual phenomena we might now observe (or have been observing) with the idea that there is likely burning ejecta from the sun that we might not ordinarily detect as they are much less visible without any flames.
Of course, the second quote does bring up questions about what strange phenomena might be happening terrestrially or already observed unusual terrestrial phenomena may be closer to being explained with that observation.
This second quote from the article definitely merits more research.
1. Re:This definitely provides relevant research by amRadioHed · 2011-12-01 10:30 · Score: 2
  
  When one considers that less than 2% of the Sun is something other than Hydrogen and Helium, and Oxygen being only another chunk of that 2% with other elements having their chunks of that respective small percentage, that quote gives us considerable insight into why the Sun and other stars burn for as long as we believe they do.
  Two problems with what you said. First, the sun has gravity. It has a lot of gravity, and so hot gases do rise due to convection, as they do on earth. That said, the sun doesn't burn. The heat is generated from nuclear fusion in its core, and that is the reason why stars last so long.
  
  --
  We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
2. Re:This definitely provides relevant research by jimi1x · 2011-12-01 15:24 · Score: 1
  
  Your spot on there - stars aren't "on fire". "Burn" is the incorrect word to use for stars, but can serve as a useful analogy for people. IANA physicist, but as mentioned above, the gravitational attraction of the star is enough to slam the lighter elements (hydrogen, helium) together to form heavier elements. The process generates a lot of heat and pressure, and continues while the gravitational and electro-magnetic forces keep each other in check (ie as long as there is light enough elements to fuse).
Fire in space...ooo... by aitikin · 2011-12-01 14:04 · Score: 1

Am I the only one who had the immediate reaction of Man I cannot wait to see videos of THAT! when they heard fire in space?!

--
"Don't meddle in the affairs of a patent dragon, for thou art tasty and good with ketchup." ~ohcrapitssteve
yeah, but... by rocket+rancher · 2011-12-01 15:58 · Score: 1

...no one can hear you scream.
This just reminded me of... by TWToxicity · 2011-12-02 09:44 · Score: 0

...Ender's game when Ender first enters zero gravity and he starts laughing because of the distortion of senses that occurs because there is no up or down!