Would a Flamethrower work in Outer Space?
372779
Assuming you mean in a vacuum.\nAs long as you could create a delivery system that would spray both the oxidant and the combustive material in a constant stream it would work.  The problem is that if you are spraying both the chemical accelerant and the oxygen it needs to burn from the same appliance, you have to be careful that one of both of the chemicals don't mix inside the delivery mechanism or the fire will follow the path and explode inside the device.\nNASA has torches and similar devices for welding but they are extremely short range (inches).  The flame wouldn't look like one here on Earth as any particles that strayed from the main spray of oxident would immediatly stop burning.\nAlso, you wouldn't be able to cause any other combustable things to burn once the flame was removed.  If you concentrated it on a piece of wood, for instance, it would burn until you pulled the "flamethrower" away and would immediately stop burning.
713495
Wouldn't it depend on the size of your rocket?
130219
I like natural ways answer, but I think direct sun exposure would burn you up... \nSpace walks by astronauts require a thermal suit that regualtes their temperature.  If you had no protective layer like that you would burn up in temperatures of something like 390 K (117C)  Near boiling temperature (around 190 F)!  So yes the sun would keep you warm too warm..  Also the source below may help you, remember that space is essentially a vacuum.
455945
a person should not change the fuel moderator ratio, if anything the person would feel warm because their body would help dissipate the heat from the core, so there should be no effect. \nlaunching the core in to space shouldnt affect its power output, being that there is not air in space to cool it or contain it it may just overheat and melt-down, or become an uncontrolled reaction and explode like any other nuclear weapon. but i am not too sure
578055
The problem is being able to compress enough energy into a finite spray to have the same net effect.\n\nChemicals capable of sustaining and carrying flame are easy to shoot at high velocities, giving long range and good firepower (if you'll pardon the pun). Also, remember that the flame-thrower is actually just projecting the flammable chemicals, like a stream of water, and the flame is carrying itself along.\n\nFor something that shoots cold or ice, however, you need to imbue the particulate spray with the cold, which requires significant additional energy. You can't just shoot a stream of chemicals and have the cold carry itself along the way fire does. For those reasons, it's much more complex an issue from a chemical engineering standpoint.
325229
Although it is possible, It would take a lot of effort and materials to do this. There is also the chance the rocket could fail and could even explode in midair, and I don't think we want to see that.\n\nThere could be a better but similar plan though.
1036071
If you could get one down there, it would likely melt before detonation. If you could solve that problem, then the result MIGHT depend on the yield of the weapon... but it would have to be a few million times stronger than today's strongest weapons, since the immense molten iron core of the earth handles pressures and forces far in excess of anything we will ever experience, and probably stronger than anything we could ever create in the next five thousand years. Nukes are only scary for fragile surface creatures in a relatively tiny area, not for fiery iron spheres that are the size of the moon.
1076466
Cool, thanks so much for the idea. I believe that the space industry would love it.\n\nI have a few connections with Raytheon (formally Hughs Aircraft) and a few connection within the military. I will take my idea to them and see if I can get it started.
331943
Should think so.\n\nYou can take a pot of water and an intense laser with you to space (Combustion may not be your best bet, even if you are taking oxygen cylinders. It may get too unpredictable).\n\nOnce in space, direct the laser at the pot. In due time, it should 'boil'.\n\nWell actually, the behaviour of water at zero pressure is quite peculiar. It can be seen from the phase diagram that water skips the liquid state at low pressures, and exhibits sublimation. \nSo even if you manage to keep the water liquid until you ready it for boiling, the moment you expose it to space(meaning zero pressure) some of the water will immediately turn into vapour. The remaining mass, will, in the absence of any heat source, freeze. \n\nIf you do provide heating, it will obviously vapourize. \nThus, strictly speaking, it will not 'boil'.
187416
Naturally.\nIts like a rocket.  Fuel and oxygen are all self-contained.\nWhen a sealed shell casing detonates, where is the oxygen supposed to come from?  The oxygen is already in the nitrate.\n\nA bullet would work exceptionally well in space.  No wind resistance and no gravity to bend the trajectory.\n\nYah, ray guns are an option.  The ones we have with currrent technology are to heavy to pick up, but in space...
813411
Well, you couldn't, because my calculations tell me that if you get closer than about 5000 km. from a neutron star, the tidal forces, that is the difference between the gravity pull on your feet and your head, would stretch you out and kill you.  If you built a strong robotic vehicle that could get to within 1600 km of the surface, the rock would be pulled to powder by tidal forces before it hit the surface.  The bits would hit the surface at up to a third of the speed of light, 100 000 km/second, depending on the mass of the neutron star.  They'd get so hot on impact that they'd emit X-rays, which, as they climbed against the neutron star's gravity, would lose energy, and you'd see them from a safe distance as soft X-rays, UV and visible light.The amount of energy radiated would be about 10^15 joules; comparable to the Hiroshima bomb.  The mass of the neutron star would increase by about half a kilogramme or so.  The crust of a neutron star probably consists of iron or diamond, and your rock would end up as one of these.  It would be interesting to perform this experiment, from a safe distance, with a robot probe, on a neutron star within a whisker of collapsing into a black hole, to see what gives.
574734
Something very close to it already exists:  Ion drive.  This uses charged xenon particles as its propellant.  The acceleration is very low, but it is much more efficient than chemical rockets.  NASA has already put it to practical use with their Deep Space 1 probe, and will use it again with their Helium 3 probe.\n\nOf course, that's still a mass-reaction drive.  A rather exotic one, but still...\n\nOne way of using light for propulsion is with a "solar sail," which The Planetary Society tried to test with its Cosmos-1 mission.  Unfortunately, the probe was lost in a launch failure.  They want to try again, though; you might want to write to them about your idea.
1152217
Yes since it would reach it's terminal velocity after a few feet. &  DUE TO THE DRAG IT WOULD NOT ACHIEVE THE SPEED OTHERS are THINKING IT  would ACHIEVE.Given that air is present .
294062
In theory it could work but the process would create a large amount of heat and therefor the engine would be so heavy that it would not be practical. Maybe in a stationary application?
1123256
That would be really cool, and they have been trying for years, but so far no success. Rocket planes, like the X-15 and Burt Rutan's Space Ship one, have flown outside the atmosphere, but only at speeds less than 5,000 miles per hour (less than Mach 7). Since orbital speed is 17,500 miles per hour (Mach 25), both these rocket planes immediately start falling back down to the atmosphere as soon as the rocket propellant runs out, which it does in just a few minutes.\n\nA jet powered craft could possibly achieve higher speeds, but unlike rockets, jets need to use air from the atmosphere to keep burning their fuel. While new experiments like the x-43 are testing very high speed jet engines, the problem of friction with the air remains. If you want to make it to orbit you need to get the full 17,500 miles per hour orbital speed, and at that speed the plane would melt from the same heating that the shuttle experiences during reentry. So the only way we know to get to space is to get above the atmosphere before the speed gets too fast, and no atmosphere means you need rockets that carry their own oxygen with them in huge tanks. It is very inefficient, but still the only way known to get to space.
472595
doubt it the suns outa layer alone has a temp of 6,000°C (11,000°F. and the inner core with a temp of  15,000,000° C; 27,000,000°F. and pressure (340 billion times Earth's air pressure at sea level) is so intense that nuclear reactions take place. so its highly doubtful but if there where they'd be some strong little ufos no human nor animal or even a earths creature could possibly survive the heat that intense
51283
Shuttles bring oxygen with them, because they have to burn their fuel to propel themselves through space.  It is because they carry liquid oxygen that they are so incredibly dangerous.\n\nBut really, fire is just an oxidation/reduction reaction.  All you really need are an oxidizer, a reducer, and heat.  Oxygen gas in the air serves as the oxidizer for most fires, and carbohydrates (lignin, cellulose, oil, petroleum, coal, etc) serve as the reducer in most fires you see.  But some rockets use nitrogen dioxide as the oxidizer instead of oxygen.  You could, theoretically, use hydrogen gas and chlorine gas to make a flame in the absense of oxygen--but oxygen is the only common and abundant oxidizer, since it is created as a byproduct of photosynthesis in plants and cyanobacteria.