Visual Effect: Something blowing up in space.

Why are you so obsessed with whatever you mean by PC?

And if you've seen many many examples, what's the problem?

If you're writing fantasy you can have any ship or atmosphere you want and any result you want.

If you're attempting to write science fiction you need to read a lot of what you intend to write and in addition a degree in the science and physics field would help.

First, I entirely agree with Bufty: You are obsessing over something no interested reader will worry about.

Second, you really need to study some science. As just one example, methane is only flammable in the presence of oxygen. And the amount of methane burned will be dependent purely on the amount of oxygen available.

And a GRB will not set the Earth's atmosphere "on fire".

And a nuke detonating on the moon will not produce the kind of "mushroom cloud" that happens on Earth. That cloud is made up largely of water droplets formed from water vapor as air is force violently to rise due to the detonation. Neither significant atmosphere nor water vapor on the moon.

And, in space, an explosion won't produce a "pressure wave", whatever you mean by that; nothing there to "pressure". There would only be whatever flash the explosion produced, based on internal components of the exploding vessel, and débris.

caw

caw

Check this video out from some NASA research https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZTl7oi05dQ
The basics of a ship burning. You would get an explosion. Depending on the size of the blast you would get varying degrees of damage. The shards of broken spaceship would be thrown off into space. Without anything to act upon the pieces, they would continue in the direction they were propelled by the blast, and not float around as hollywood would have us believe.

Fire needs 3 things, fuel, heat and oxygen. Space is around 2.7 Kelvin (-270C / -454F) so unless the burning fuel generated extreme heat, it would go out pretty quickly.

The moon is 3476 km in diameter and 384400 km away from us (on average). The Hiroshima bomb was 10 kilotons and the blast radius was 0.8 km. I'm guessing that an explosion that is approximately 4000 times smaller than the moon could not be seen from earth. As there is no atmosphere, the finer dust like material ejected from the blast, might be observable through a telescope, as it would hang around for quite some time.

Setting an atmosphere on fire. Again, fire needs all three factors. Whilst the ship was still burning, it would consume oxygen from the planet's atmosphere, if it were low enough. But once the combustible material had been burnt up, the fire would go out. There would not be enough fuel to sustain the entire atmosphere burning. If you were to have a fuel source in the planet's atmosphere, the first meteor that burnt up in the planet's atmosphere, would have burnt off the fuel or oxygen a long time ago.

If the planet has a methane atmosphere, then there would be little of no oxygen. without oxygen, the methane can't burn. Again, if the atmosphere was flammable, ie methane & oxygen; see above point about meteors.

Trailing smoke, I don't think this is possible. Space is just too cold to sustain a fire. Rocket fuel burns because it burns extremely hot (1200 C) it also has it's oxygen source combined with the fuel in a carefully controlled combustion chamber. Air / oxygen that provided life support would leave the life support system at 1bar / atmosphere of pressure. The near vacuum of space would disperse it over a huge area, almost instantly, depriving the fuel source of any oxygen. No fire.
Also our space craft are made with flame retardant materials, specially so they don't catch fire. The only really flammable things apart from the fuel, is the occupants. So a lack of heat and fuel would mean no smoke trails, sorry.

Also, one last thing to remember, sound cannot travel through a vacuum, so there wouldn't be a bang to hear when the ship did explode.

Sorry to cause problems with your scene.

AndreF said:

even greater level of PC.

Click to expand...

What factors come into play with a ship blows or object blows up.

Click to expand...

You have to figure out what type of explosion it is. What types of elements are in the explosion and how those elements will react with others. The only types of explosions we see in outer space are Supernovas, however, the explosion process begins on the inside as the star collapses so this isn't the same as a space ship exploding.

AndreF said:

So if a ship "blows up" would only a pressure wave be seen while the chard pieces float near by?

Click to expand...

Depends on how powerful the explosion is. Supernovas can generate "shock" waves, but we're talking about a whole planet imploding and all sorts of elements being involved in the final act. Here's a quote from Science Magazine: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/321/5886/223

Massive stars undergo a violent death when the supply of nuclear fuel in their cores is exhausted, resulting in a catastrophic “core-collapse” supernova. Such events are usually only detected at least a few days after the star has exploded. Observations of the supernova SNLS-04D2dc with the Galaxy Evolution Explorer space telescope reveal a radiative precursor from the supernova shock before the shock reached the surface of the star and show the initial expansion of the star at the beginning of the explosion.

Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernova

The extremely luminous burst of radiation expels much or all of a star's material[2] at a velocity of up to 30,000 km/s (10% of the speed of light), driving a shock wave[3] into the surrounding interstellar medium.

Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstellar_medium

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernova#Light_curves

If there is a big explosion on the moon could a person standing on Earth see it... if a nuke went off on the moon could a person on Earth see the mushroom cloud?

Click to expand...

My question is, why nuke the moon? There's nothing up there except an American Flag, some golf balls, and a plaque. But no, there wouldn't be a mushroom cloud.

I know a GRB directed at Earth would set the atmosphere on fire.

Click to expand...

I never heard that before.

Do you know of any good examples that covers this kind of thing?

Click to expand...

You're going to have to do some major research--more than AW members can provide for you. Look into physics and chemistry. Get some books out, go to Khan Academy (it's online; Google it) they have videos on physics and chemistry and stuff.

In futuristic SF, you have to adjust for the size of the ship, and the type of explosion. If you have a ship that's half a mile long, there will be a lot of oxygen, weapns, and who knows what kind of explosives.

Just don't have sound.

Quentin Nokov said:

My question is, why nuke the moon? There's nothing up there except an American Flag, some golf balls, and a plaque. But no, there wouldn't be a mushroom cloud.

Click to expand...

Don't forget China's Yutu (Jade Rabbit) rover that landed in 2013 (then promptly broke down).

I have to say I am curious

What the hell has PC got to do with stuff blowing up in space? Anyone? Is it not PC to mention a lack of atmosphere or something? Or just lack of science if things blow up as if there was one? Or...what?

Read and know your basic stuff, cos if you have impossible things happening people will know. IF, however, your universe can accont for anomalies, you're gold

Think things through. If this, then that. If no alterations, then think through what would happen in this one. THINK.

That goes for pretty much everything in SF & F. You gotta think things through, If this, then that. If, as Sir Pterry says, pigs can really fly, then people will probably want really stout umbrellas.


If you don't think things through the whole world/universe will feel off, So THINK. Think in the "if this happens then that should happen" way Work out consequences. Extrapolate. Someone mentioning your science is off is not them being PC. It's them mentioning your science is off. Difference.

Andre, if you want to know about methane atmospheres, here's a scientific look at Titan courtesy of QI. It contains jokes about flatus and masturbation. Not sure where that sits on your PC scale, because I am completely bamboozled by your definition.

Brian Cox and Ross Noble discuss the surface of Titan.

Unimportant said:

To allay PC concerns, I'd suggest calling it silverbeet rather than chard. That way Swiss people won't be offended.

Click to expand...

Gosh no! That's offensive to silver...something


Look, OP, you seem to have some bee n your bonnet about people being upset at what you write

No matter what you do, this will happen

I don't think there is a book written anywhen, anywhere that people did not get upset about

The trick is this: Try not to piss off people you don't want to.


I do not wish to say piss off POC. I am quite happy to piss off the KKK. I do not wish to piss off the majority of women. I am quite happy tt piss off men who think women are just delicate flowers and should be in the kitchen

You Will Piss Off Someone

Pick your battle. Write what you gotta write., THINK first -- is this woman just a stereotype? Is my cast all white despite the fact it;s set in Brixton?


THINK

And you'll still get people who don't agree with you and..so? I'm sure there's many people who do not agree with me IRL. It does not stop me living.

Read, learn, think

Then do the best you can, Just like everyone else.

PC means political correctness, not physical correctness, which it sounds the OP was asking about. I, too, am curious as to why PC was even brought up.

About space and sound, it may be true as they say, "In space, no one can hear you scream your ship blow up." Except, of course, for the people inside the ship. If you have any perspective from inside the ship, and depending on the velocity of the explosion and the size of the ship (a small supersonic explosion that causes a chain reaction explosion as opposed to disintegrating the entire ship could be heard), it may be appropriate, to include them hearing the roar that was bringing their doom.

One of the most horrific sounds I've heard was on the recordings from the cell phones of people caught in a fatal event. The momentary screams and noises of destruction will put a knot in just about anybody's stomach.

AndreF said:

I haven't investigated this at all. But Could that be possible to have a sound emulator. A device that reads the energy waves something might make and produce sound from them? To read those waves at their source that is ... because space as you mentioned would suck the other waves out.

I really appreciate ya'll answering that one. Like I said I've seen many examples in movies, books, video games, tv shows.

Click to expand...

Perhaps it would be easier to answer your questions if you did do some basic investigation first.

If you read the Wikipedia entry on mushroom clouds, for example, you'll get an idea why they might not form on the moon.

As for sound emulators...vessels in space wouldn't be using their propulsion systems all the time, surely.

As an aside - you will get greater scientific leniency depending on your genre/audience.

You want a bad-ass fireball engulfing an enemy ship as it smashes into a dwarf star, triggering a coranal mass ejection that lights up the solar system like a galactic arm reaching out for a high-five?? You'll get away with it if your writing something more like Star Trek than a Alistair Reynolds Hard SF.....

Hell, FTL is scientifically inaccurate, and yet gets used constantly. Audience/Tone is key - match your scientific accuracy to audience expectations.

Do you do anything beyond wandering around forums/web sites and trying to come up with questions that show you don't gain much from the wandering?

AndreF said:

I just assumed a mushroom cloud was result of critical mass. But then again when I was researching the various types of nukes and hydrogen bombs I was studying the weapons themselves ... not the plume and fallout.

It was the report that helped me graduate from High School. Learned lots about the Manhattan Project and TSAR bombs.

Even saw some interesting ways a small fighter craft can deliver a nuke.

But not the mushroom cloud. Nope. I know it takes fifteen seconds for one to form. I also know the weapon is detonated above ground and not on it.

Read other reports that would give you goosebumps and may even make you cry. But nothing about the cloud itself.

I read other writing forums some abandoned about various methods sci fi authors used. There was a micro debate over the fire aboard a ship in Star Wars because the atmosphere had just enough O2 for the fire to feed off of. There were some other forums about the issue as well and each one had his or her own take on them.

I did see something on APOD about a planet too close to its sun and is literally a burning planet.

Click to expand...

AndreF said:

I just assumed a mushroom cloud was result of critical mass. But then again when I was researching the various types of nukes and hydrogen bombs I was studying the weapons themselves ... not the plume and fallout.

It was the report that helped me graduate from High School. Learned lots about the Manhattan Project and TSAR bombs.

Even saw some interesting ways a small fighter craft can deliver a nuke.

But not the mushroom cloud. Nope. I know it takes fifteen seconds for one to form. I also know the weapon is detonated above ground and not on it.

Read other reports that would give you goosebumps and may even make you cry. But nothing about the cloud itself.

I read other writing forums some abandoned about various methods sci fi authors used. There was a micro debate over the fire aboard a ship in Star Wars because the atmosphere had just enough O2 for the fire to feed off of. There were some other forums about the issue as well and each one had his or her own take on them.

I did see something on APOD about a planet too close to its sun and is literally a burning planet.

Click to expand...

In all that reading and wandering, it never occurred to you that the atmosphere might be important for mushroom cloud formation?

Hillsy7 said:

As an aside - you will get greater scientific leniency depending on your genre/audience.

You want a bad-ass fireball engulfing an enemy ship as it smashes into a dwarf star, triggering a coranal mass ejection that lights up the solar system like a galactic arm reaching out for a high-five?? You'll get away with it if your writing something more like Star Trek than a Alistair Reynolds Hard SF.....

Hell, FTL is scientifically inaccurate, and yet gets used constantly. Audience/Tone is key - match your scientific accuracy to audience expectations.

Click to expand...

Even FTL needs a plausible reason for working now. I don't know of an SF readership that doesn't expect accuracy, outside of Star Wars novels. You can certainly write about things that aren't possible now, but you won't get away with writing things we know are impossible. SF readers are a pretty knowledgeable bunch, and they don't like being treated like they don't know you're faking it.

Helix said:

In all that reading and wandering, it never occurred to you that the atmosphere might be important for mushroom cloud formation?

Click to expand...

Or the fact that any explosion of sufficient power will cause a mushroom cloud to form. It is in no way exclusive to atomics.

AndreF said:

I just assumed a mushroom cloud was result of critical mass. But then again when I was researching the various types of nukes and hydrogen bombs I was studying the weapons themselves ... not the plume and fallout.

Click to expand...

Then your research was a little sloppy. To fully understand a nuclear weapon, you would need to know not just how they're built, what they're built with, and how the explosion is triggered, you would need to know what happens in the resulting explosion, the damage that occurs, the different sorts of damage different sized bombs create, the results on infrastructure, land, and different lifeforms, effects on weather, etc. If you needed to know about the mushroom clouds and how they're formed and what they're made of, you would have learned this earlier in your research; studying a nuclear weapon and its effects shouldn't stop at "...and the bomb exploded".

BenPanced said:

studying a nuclear weapon and its effects shouldn't stop at "...and the bomb exploded".

Click to expand...

Well now, that entirely depends on just how close you're standing to the object you're studying.

Atomic detonations in a vacuum are fascinating things though. With no medium to propogate the blast effects, the physical damage is greatly reduced, although you've still got that very brief, but very intense particle burst at moment of detonation to ruin your day.

Thomas Vail said:

Or the fact that any explosion of sufficient power will cause a mushroom cloud to form. It is in no way exclusive to atomics.

Click to expand...

Why? What would the mushroom cloud be composed of? On a planet it would be the soil and matter it destroyed.

morriss003 said:

Why? What would the mushroom cloud be composed of? On a planet it would be the soil and matter it destroyed.

Click to expand...

No. On Earth, the cloud is composed of much the same material as any other cloud: Water droplets condensed from water vapor in the atmosphere. A big chemical explosion can cause such a cloud to be generated. Intense wildfires, likewise.

The mushroom-shaped cloud is generated mainly through intense heating of the air surrounding the blast, which causes it to rise and curl in a massive convection current. As it rises, it cools and water vapor condenses into droplets.

caw