]If you lit a match in zero gravity, would it smother in its own smoke?

[Enright3]

If you lit a match in zero gravity, would it smother in its own smoke?

In this article Cecil says:

The space shuttle astronauts brought a couple along on a mission last summer and lit them inside a sealed chamber having an earth-type atmosphere. (This is not something you would want to do in the open space shuttle cabin, where for obvious reasons an exposed flame is on a par with leaving the front door open.)

Uh… it’s not obvious to me. “leaving the front door open?” Since he says “front” door, I assume he’s not talking about the space shuttle door, otherwise I would have assumed this is a problem because the flame would use up all of the manufactured oxygen. So… why is lighting a match in a space shuttle like leaving the front door to your house(?) open?

[Xema]

I think Cecil may have it wrong here. This link says that the environment maintained on board the shuttle is similar to that on earth: 14.7 psi, 80% nitrogen, 20% oxygen. It’s easy to accept that open flames are not something to be encouraged, but I see no obvious reason why “an exposed flame is on a par with leaving the front door open,” or indeed why in such an environment this would lead to any immediate problem.

[Telemark]

I think the point is that its a silly thing to do, just like leaving your front door open is a silly thing to do. An accidental fire in the main shuttle compartment, no matter how unlikely, is a disaster. You don’t play games when an accident will leave you dead.

[Gukumatz]

I’m with Telemark on this one, in that I too think that Cecil’s referance was to the stupidity of taking a unnecessary risk rather than referring to space/vakuum. It doesn’t come easily through on the first reading, though.

[Xema]

I think Cecilis saying more than “it’s a bit silly.”

@Cecil

What you really want is a candle. The space shuttle astronauts brought a couple along on a mission last summer and lit them inside a sealed chamber having an earth-type atmosphere. (This is not something you would want to do in the open space shuttle cabin, where for obvious reasons an exposed flame is on a par with leaving the front door open.)

He seems to be under the impression that the shuttle itself has something other than an earth-like atmosphere. (This may be so - my link (above) may be in error.)

@Gukumatz

I too think that Cecil’s referance was to the stupidity of taking a unnecessary risk

“leaving the front door open” seems a strange way to exemplify this.

[Nametag]

It’s-a makin’ me crazy. The stupidity of having an open flame on a spacecraft is on a par with the stupidity of leaving a door open on a spacecraft – i.e., so sheerly, obviously, suicidally stupid that you don’t even think of doing it. And, obviously, if you use a sealed container for the experiment, you can use any atmosphere you want – so you specify conditions for the initial experiment, like “earth atmoshphere at STP.”

Honestly, the way you guys split hairs, you must spend a fortune on conditioner.

[Elendil_s_Heir]

I could also do without his slam at NASA’s budget in the last sentence. NASA spends less in a year than the Defense Department does in a day or so, IIRC. It’s a tiny, tiny part of the Federal budget, and I think we get a very good value for our tax dollars.

[DSYoungEsq]

@Elendil's Heir

I could also do without his slam at NASA’s budget in the last sentence. NASA spends less in a year than the Defense Department does in a day or so, IIRC. It’s a tiny, tiny part of the Federal budget, and I think we get a very good value for our tax dollars.

Oh, Lord. :rolleyes: Unca Cece made a joke. Get on with it. He’s also poked fun at the Defense Dept. and it’s budget, I’m sure. And frankly, we get zippo “value” for our tax dollars from NASA. We get exactly what we should get: accomplishment of something that we as a society deem important for our government to accomplish. When that stops being true, NASA can be terminated.

[Xema]

@Nametag

The stupidity of having an open flame on a spacecraft is on a par with the stupidity of leaving a door open on a spacecraft

Sorry if you think it’s hair-splitting but I don’t find that there’s a valid equivalence between something that’s guaranteed to threaten the spacecraft and all on board (leaving a door open) and something that both theory and practice say has very little effect (a small open flame). It’s like saying that drinking a glass of wine is on a par with drinking drain cleaner.

Under the assumption that the atmosphere on board is earth-like, how is the effect of an open flame on a spacecraft much different from that of one aboard an airliner?