Explosives in a Vacuum - The Science Behind It

  • Thread starter Thread starter drcathyc
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Vacuum
AI Thread Summary
Explosives can function in a vacuum because many are designed to contain both fuel and oxidizer within their chemical structure, eliminating the need for atmospheric oxygen. While traditional combustion, like that of gasoline, requires oxygen from the air, certain chemical reactions, such as the one between sugar and potassium chlorate, demonstrate that reactions can occur without external oxygen. These reactions can lead to explosive outcomes when conditions like proper mixing and confinement are met. Explosives like nitroglycerin are examples of substances that undergo rapid chemical reactions, releasing gases and heat that drive the explosive force, independent of atmospheric conditions. This understanding is crucial for accurately depicting explosive scenarios in science fiction writing.
drcathyc
Messages
24
Reaction score
0
[SOLVED] explosives in a vacuum

Someone recently told me that explosives wouldn't work in a hard vacuum, that oxygen is required. Is this true? I know fire requires oxygen, but wouldn't there be some chemical reactions that don't require oxygen that can cause an explosive release of energy?

I'm a science fiction writer and want to make sure I get my science right (to the best of my ability!):smile:
 
Chemistry news on Phys.org
In most explosives, the fuel and oxidizer and closely mixed together…it does not require outside Oxygen to burn.

Although Oxygen gas is a common oxidizing substance which is used in the combustion of many fuels (such as in the example of a camp fire), it is not the only oxidizer.

Take, for example, the reaction between sugar (sucrose) and Potassium Chlorate,
C12H22O11 + KClO3 --> CO2 + H2O + KCl
In this case (when properly balanced), no Oxygen from the atmosphere is required for the reaction to proceed, all of the ‘oxygen’ the reaction needs is present in the oxidizer…in this case, solid Potassium Chlorate.
If this reaction is preformed under the proper conditions (i.e. reactants thoroughly mixed, confined space, small particle size, …) it can lead to an explosion.
 
drcathyc said:
Someone recently told me that explosives wouldn't work in a hard vacuum, that oxygen is required. Is this true? I know fire requires oxygen, but wouldn't there be some chemical reactions that don't require oxygen that can cause an explosive release of energy?

I'm a science fiction writer and want to make sure I get my science right (to the best of my ability!):smile:

In addition to what correctly said mrjeffy321, what you say is true only in the case in which there is an explosion with fuel in eccess with respect to oxidant, for example if a container of gasoline explodes: there will be a lot of gasoline not previously mixed with air, so most of the fuel will burn _after_ the initial explosion, making the total explosion more powerful when the fuel finds the oxygen during its expansion in the air.

However an "explosive" is a substance or mix of substances where fuel and oxidant are very intimately mixed together (or inside the same molecule), so it won't need air at all; that fact is one of the reasons it's explosive...
 
Last edited:
If I understand it correctly, nitroglycerin is a self-contained chemical reaction. The solid molecule is very unstable. When jostled, it rearranges itself in another configuration of lower energy. The new configuration is that of several gases, all of which, partly because of the released heat and partly because they are gases, want to expand very rapidly.
 
Thanks for the help here. I was pretty certain the other person was wrong in what she said (in regard to a story I had written), but I wanted to make sure.
 
It seems like a simple enough question: what is the solubility of epsom salt in water at 20°C? A graph or table showing how it varies with temperature would be a bonus. But upon searching the internet I have been unable to determine this with confidence. Wikipedia gives the value of 113g/100ml. But other sources disagree and I can't find a definitive source for the information. I even asked chatgpt but it couldn't be sure either. I thought, naively, that this would be easy to look up without...
I was introduced to the Octet Rule recently and make me wonder, why does 8 valence electrons or a full p orbital always make an element inert? What is so special with a full p orbital? Like take Calcium for an example, its outer orbital is filled but its only the s orbital thats filled so its still reactive not so much as the Alkaline metals but still pretty reactive. Can someone explain it to me? Thanks!!
Back
Top