top | item 44521558

(no title)

nickparker | 7 months ago

Bad popularizing article, doesn't cover the actual conclusion:

The main points emerging from the combined simulation and experimental study on atmospheric entry of the paper plane are: • Orbit: The paper space plane de-orbits from LEO extremely quickly due to its very low ballistic coefficient. Atmospheric entry from a 400 km circular orbit occurs within a few days. • Attitude: In the free-molecular portion of atmospheric entry, above ∼120 km altitude, the paper space plane maintains a stable flow-pointing attitude. Small-amplitude oscillations occur in pitch and yaw. Although the coupled simulator is not designed for application at lower altitudes, the results suggest the onset of uncontrollable tumbling at ∼120 km altitude. • Heating: Based on the hypersonic wind tunnel test results and simulation, surface forces acting on the space plane during atmospheric entry are not expected to cause significant deformation. However, the paper space plane experiences severe aerodynamic heating in the order of 105 W/m2 (or 10 W/cm2 ) for several minutes. Accordingly, combustion or pyrolysis is expected during atmospheric entry

discuss

order

wkat4242|7 months ago

So, in other words make it a tinfoil plane (or Mylar or something else) and it might survive?

This is definitely something that should be tested before the ISS deorbits. For science.

msgodel|7 months ago

It's a shame there's not a more substantial colony in space than the ISS with its own stock of throwaway microcontrollers and paper. If there were someone could make a few transmitters with paper airplanes, fling them out on the next space walk, and we could have a pretty good idea of what actually happens.

delichon|7 months ago

Once you have a vehicle made from heat resistant paper that can survive re-entry, with a GPS receiver and a couple of control surfaces you can drop it within a few meters anywhere along your orbital path. If the weather cooperates. "Hi Mom, I'm up in space!"

snypher|7 months ago

>105 W/m2 (or 10 W/cm2)

105 W/m2 = 0.0105 W/cm2..

10W/cm2 is 100kW/m2?!

Edit: from the paper its 10^5W/m^2 which is 10W/cm^2 :)