Recent comments in /f/space

FatiTankEris t1_ja2otqq wrote

Explosions would be the same, but would spread out much faster due to lack of resistance, at pretty much orbital velocities perhaps, and therefore just looking like a flash with a cone of gas for 300ms or so, then some more particles and depressurisation. Also, very sudden change in velocity, explosion working like a thrust.

1

oudeicrat t1_ja2mnqh wrote

even in an atmosphere, proper high explosions (as opposed to combustion) are too fast to consume atmospheric oxygen anyway, they are fueled mostly by their own payload oxidizer, so they can happen in vacuum just fine if proper ignition and oxidizer is provided (or if they are nuclear-based)

1

smoakee t1_ja2lep1 wrote

Im here to save the day! You are absolutely right and if it bothers you I VERY STRONGLY ADVICE YOU to watch The Expanse tv series on Amazon Prime, which is one of the most scientificaly correct sci-fi tv show ever filmed.

2

stuck_on_the_vine t1_ja2invn wrote

Nice photo 🤙

You've got Betelgeuse (Orion - Giant's shoulder) standing out above the belt and clockwise around and it you have Bellatrix, Rigel and Saiph.

(!) At some point in the next 100,000 years Betelgeuse will explode. To life on Earth it will be visible during the day and as bright as a half moon for about a year until it slowly fades out of the sky. 🤷

I think you've got Sirius bottom left between the trees and Aldebaran top right too.

3

aerospace_tgirl t1_ja2fyl8 wrote

Explosions in space movies aren't actually that unrealistic. If you're talking SW, realistically, those ships would use antimatter propulsion. If containment fails, boom. If anything, those explosions are too small.

In case of low-tech / current-tech sci-fi - as you've noted there's no fire in space, so in order to burn their engines ship need to carry their own oxygen (or other oxidiser) - if ship is damaged and they mix boom.

2