Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

The famous "Tears in rain" soliloquy in Blade Runner goes like this:

I've... seen things you people wouldn't believe... [contemptuous laugh] Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched c-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate. All those... moments... will be lost in time, like [small cough] tears... in... rain. Time... to die...

In what sense can attack ships be "on fire" in space? I would think that lack of oxygen would externally-visible keep combustion as we know it on Earth from going on more than momentarily, but perhaps I'm wrong. Or maybe there's some other phenomenon we would describe as "on fire." Could some sort of a nuclear reaction be described as "on fire"?

share|cite|improve this question
It's a movie. It never happened. – mmesser314 May 20 '14 at 4:00
up vote 0 down vote accepted

Ok... ask yourself "what is fire?" Check out Webster rather than Wikipedia:

Fire is combustion, which is the rapid oxidation of a substance creating a plasma. So, what you need to have a "fire in space" is you need to have oxygen, a material that can be oxidized and some initial energy to start the reaction going.

We humans have done this in real life on the ISS. See and . So the flames are real and the "explosions" can be real too.

In addition, it is possible to weld and "explode fireballs" underwater: and Again, you need to supply your own oxygen.

Nuclear reactions are not "on fire". They can be hot enough to cause a plasma and an explosion, but technically fire is oxygen combining with another substance chemically. Since all chemical reactions (yes all) are the result of electron orbital interactions are do not include neutrons or the nucleus, fire cannot be a "nuclear reaction" by definition.

share|cite|improve this answer
You don't need oxygen. You need an oxidizer which is a much more expansive category. – dmckee May 20 '14 at 4:21

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.