2014 Olympic Torch In Space

[Latcarf]

"Once handed off to space station commander Oleg Kotov and flight engineer Sergey Ryazansky, the torch will be taken on a spacewalk Nov. 9, where live video and photographs will document it floating above the Earth."

(VIA one of the many articles about this: http://www.space.com/23271-space-olympics-torch-winter-games.html)

What is a torch without a flame? Symbolic acts such as passing the "torch" during a spacewalk outside of the ISS are worthwhile, but we are legitimately in the future. What is stopping the torch from actually being a torch? Now before you call me an idiot, I'm not trying to devise space fire. I'm thinking more along the lines of a contained system.

I pose the question here because I haven't found a suitable answer: How could the Olympic flame exist safely in space?

KB

[drakesdoom]

Put a helmet on it.

[Moon Goddess]

If I understand correctly the torch is a handheld tank of gas with a nozzle. If you added a tank of o2 you'd have a flame in space... just be crazy careful about the direction of thrust.

[Latcarf]

If I understand correctly the torch is a handheld tank of gas with a nozzle. If you added a tank of o2 you'd have a flame in space... just be crazy careful about the direction of thrust.

"For safety reasons, the torch will not burn when it's onboard the space outpost. Lighting it would consume precious oxygen and pose a threat to the crew. The crew will carry the unlit torch around the station's numerous modules before taking it out on a spacewalk." VIA: http://news.yahoo.com/russia-sending-sochi-olympics-torch-space-135841475--spt.html

So it's going up without flame. Is there a way for a flame to exist inside of a completely contained system?

[Mr Shifty]

So it's going up without flame. Is there a way for a flame to exist inside of a completely contained system?

Sure. Until the oxygen or fuel gets used up.

[Nephf]

PLEASE, dear russians, use the engine of the sojuz!

[3_bit]

How about this: We use the torch to light the engines of the rocket, thus making the rocket's flames daughter fires of the torch! Then, you have that go on to the next stage, and so on into orbit, then FINALLY, you have the last engines to burn, ignited from the daughters of the torch, ignite 2 bipropellant thrusters, each on opposing sides, thus cancelling out the thrust, then use that flame to ignite the olympic torch, IN SPACE! Then, for the retro burn, you tie the torch to the engine, and use it to ignite it. Then you.... erm.... bring the torch back inside (you would have been using RCS to counteract the engine's thrust anyways) and you put it in a contained enviroment.

[Latcarf]

Sure. Until the oxygen or fuel gets used up.

Assuming it was an enclosed system with a fuel tank-- It would seem that an external tank can keep it fueled right up until the cameras turn on. Then it would last for lets say 2 hours (or more, less, idk) before it would need to be refueled. Also there would be the issue of stray heat that needs to go somewhere, as well as exhaust, right? Since I posted this I got into conversation about it with a barista and I told him I'd report my findings to him

I NEED ANSWERS *slams fist on table*

[Drunkrobot]

"Once handed off to space station commander Oleg Kotov and flight engineer Sergey Ryazansky, the torch will be taken on a spacewalk Nov. 9, where live video and photographs will document it floating above the Earth."

Well, I have my new desktop background decided upon! What better way of showing how LEO is a part of our daily lives than taking a symbol of international unity on a spacewalk outside a structure built by international unity.

I suppose you could keep the torch inside a container with pressurized Oxygen for it to stay alight. Probably for the best it isn't lit, we don't want another Mir moment!

[Moon Goddess]

"For safety reasons, the torch will not burn when it's onboard the space outpost. Lighting it would consume precious oxygen and pose a threat to the crew. The crew will carry the unlit torch around the station's numerous modules before taking it out on a spacewalk." VIA: http://news.yahoo.com/russia-sending-sochi-olympics-torch-space-135841475--spt.html

So it's going up without flame. Is there a way for a flame to exist inside of a completely contained system?

I wasn't referring to while in the space craft, I meant during the EVA you could have it burning for photos.

[lajoswinkler]

Instead of flame, ember might be used, but no chemical reaction is for the best. People's lives depend on steady balance of gases onboard.

A lit torch (reducer and oxidizer) during EVA would be fun to watch, but it would give off very hot particles which would do a great deal of harm to surfaces they collide with. I wouldn't want my suit to be bombarded with it, as well as solar panels or windows.

[Kryten]

I highly doubt roscosmos and/or NASA would take too kindly to a request for a container full of rocket fuel and corrosive, probably toxic oxidiser to be brought into the pressurised area of their space station.

[Latcarf]

I highly doubt roscosmos and/or NASA would take too kindly to a request for a container full of rocket fuel and corrosive, probably toxic oxidiser to be brought into the pressurised area of their space station.

Hahahaha Kryten. Good lord it doesn't need to be fueled as though it was a projectile! What an awesome concept though!!

Instead of flame, ember might be used, but no chemical reaction is for the best. People's lives depend on steady balance of gases onboard.

A lit torch (reducer and oxidizer) during EVA would be fun to watch, but it would give off very hot particles which would do a great deal of harm to surfaces they collide with. I wouldn't want my suit to be bombarded with it, as well as solar panels or windows.

lajoswinkler that is a great point, a variable I did not consider-- burning fuel in micro-grav. Not quite as predictable as it is on earth, however-- inside of a contained unit there would not be any chance of stray particles escaping. The ember may be the most feasible solution yet imo.

[Kraken tamer]

Wouldn't there also be a problem with getting the flame to burn even in an oxygenated environment since there is no gravity to make the spent gasses rise so new ones would replace them? Wouldn't you need some kind of pressure/recirculating system?

[Ralathon]

Wouldn't there also be a problem with getting the flame to burn even in an oxygenated environment since there is no gravity to make the spent gasses rise so new ones would replace them? Wouldn't you need some kind of pressure/recirculating system?

Flames do work in a vacuum, oxygen gets to them via diffusion. But it's a tiny little sphere and it burns way slower than on the ground. However, I reckon that you could quite easily create a nice draft when you run it on pressurized gas. Kinda like a bunsen burner, should give a nice flame similar to what we're used to on earth.

[FellipeC]

I would be happy with amber lamp

[lajoswinkler]

I highly doubt roscosmos and/or NASA would take too kindly to a request for a container full of rocket fuel and corrosive, probably toxic oxidiser to be brought into the pressurised area of their space station.

No, not huge amounts. I meant those red emergency torches people use on seas. Strontium nitrate is the oxidizer and it gives off a red light. I'd reall like to see how that thing burns in microgravity and vacuum. In air, aerosol it produces gives off smoke, but in space conditions, it would shoot the stuff everywhere.

lajoswinkler that is a great point, a variable I did not consider-- burning fuel in micro-grav. Not quite as predictable as it is on earth, however-- inside of a contained unit there would not be any chance of stray particles escaping. The ember may be the most feasible solution yet imo.

Wouldn't there also be a problem with getting the flame to burn even in an oxygenated environment since there is no gravity to make the spent gasses rise so new ones would replace them? Wouldn't you need some kind of pressure/recirculating system?

You have a point about the actual dynamics of burning in microgravity. I'm not sure what would happen to ember. Flames do have a greater diffusion than embers which makes them stable but spherical and poor, but embers spend way less fuels. I really don't know how stable it would be. There's probably a paper somewhere about the issue.

[Moon Goddess]

Flames do work in a vacuum, oxygen gets to them via diffusion. But it's a tiny little sphere and it burns way slower than on the ground. However, I reckon that you could quite easily create a nice draft when you run it on pressurized gas. Kinda like a bunsen burner, should give a nice flame similar to what we're used to on earth.

Flames do just fine in space when you bring the oxydizer along.

The torch would simply be a tiny rocket engine, pack it with a monopropellant, or even solid rocket fuel. Just design it in such a way that it has a TWR of like 0.0001 or something.

[Camacha]

Isn't there anyone else who thinks this is a waste of resources? Considering the guitar on board the ISS has cost about $75.000 to get it up there (with notable positive psychological effects on astronauts), I loathe to think what this Olympic stunt has cost. There are probably better things to send into space.

[Mr Shifty]

Considering the guitar on board the ISS has cost about $75.000 to get it up there

This is not true. The guitar itself cost about $1800 dollars. It was brought aboard on on MPLM during STS-105. The MPLM was not space constrained, so there was really no marginal cost for adding the guitar to the payload.

[Camacha]

This is not true. The guitar itself cost about $1800 dollars. It was brought aboard on on MPLM during STS-105. The MPLM was not space constrained, so there was really no marginal cost for adding the guitar to the payload.

It is only fair to devide launch costs by the total payload that got sent up, for it is the very reason things are miniaturized at all. Sending a kilogram to orbit has a cost, it is simple as that. That it might be 'spare room' (or more accurately weight), as you would call it, makes no difference.

[Karriz]

Isn't there anyone else who thinks this is a waste of resources? Considering the guitar on board the ISS has cost about $75.000 to get it up there (with notable positive psychological effects on astronauts), I loathe to think what this Olympic stunt has cost. There are probably better things to send into space.

I don't think bringing extra 1.5 kg can be much of an issue. It's basically as if one of the astronauts happened to weigh a tiny bit more.

[Camacha]

I don't think bringing extra 1.5 kg can be much of an issue. It's basically as if one of the astronauts happened to weigh a tiny bit more.

Sure, there are some margins. But it is not correct to pick and choose, payload is payload, ergo bringing up the guitar costed money.

If the weight of a guitar really does not matter and is free to send up, then 10.000 guitars should also not matter, right? That is where your train of thought goes awry, a small impact is still an impact.

Edited November 7, 2013 by Camacha

[Mr Shifty]

It is only fair to devide launch costs by the total payload that got sent up, for it is the very reason things are miniaturized at all. Sending a kilogram to orbit has a cost, it is simple as that. That it might be 'spare room' (or more accurately weight), as you would call it, makes no difference.

Some payloads are weight constrained. Some are constrained by the amount of space available. Often payloads to the ISS are not full -- the disposal capability is more valuable than sending supplies. A guitar weighs basically nothing, but is bulky, hence space is the consideration. If they hadn't put the guitar on the payload, it wouldn't have affected the cost of the shuttle mission by any dollars. Likewise with the torch. If there's space, it costs nothing to add these lightweight items.

[Camacha]

Some payloads are weight constrained. Some are constrained by the amount of space available. Often payloads to the ISS are not full -- the disposal capability is more valuable than sending supplies. A guitar weighs basically nothing, but is bulky, hence space is the consideration. If they hadn't put the guitar on the payload, it wouldn't have affected the cost of the shuttle mission by any dollars. Likewise with the torch. If there's space, it costs nothing to add these lightweight items.

I understand your thinking, but it does not work that way. See my previous comment about 10.000 guitars. According to you, none of those guitars would cost anything to add seperately, but I assume you are not claiming that getting 10.000 guitars to space will be free. Payload is payload and the cost of a kilogram of payload is the total cost devided by the amount kilograms to orbit. You cannot pick and choose which part of the payload you include in the costs and which part you do not.