"Researchers" hope to launch paper airplanes from space

There's certainly plenty more than just hard science going on in space, and it now looks like a group of researchers from the University of Tokyo are aiming to get in on that action as well. To that end, they've teamed up with the brains behind the Japan Origami Airplane Association to develop an origami aircraft that'll supposedly be capable of surviving the flight from the International Space Station to the Earth's surface. They even seem to have made some progress already, with them set to test an eight centimeter long prototype in the wind tunnel at the University of Tokyo later this week, where it'll face wind speeds up to 5,300 miles per hour. Of course, it'll face a few more obstacles than that in space, although the researchers assure us the plane has been "treated to withstand intense heat."

[Via Tech Digest]

[Kyle N. @ Jan 16th 2008 6:22PM]

Why is it being treated for heat resistance? Aren't the flames caused by friction with the atmosphere during re-entry? Is the terminal velocity of paper high enough to generate flames? Wouldn't it just gently float down to Earth?

[aguiluz @ Jan 16th 2008 6:39PM]

Have you ever heard that the atmosphere is multi-layered? This multi-layers (If memory serves correctly) protects us from the intense heat of the sun, which actually is infrared and ultaviolet.

If we launch paper planes in direct path of the sun's intense energy, - yep, you guessed it - the paper planes are toast unless you can get some coating on them like they did on the space shuttle. The sun even melts solar panels on satellites and i think in one Engadget post, fry a sattelite's battery due to a buggy software update. (Can't remember)

[vince @ Jan 16th 2008 7:24PM]

It seems that if a flag can survive on the moon a paper plane could survive in space without spontaneously bursting into flame. Don'cha think?

Anyway, having said that, I think it's curtains for our little paper plane from space. Friction is indeed the cause of reentry heat. Friction is a byproduct of speed, and since reentry speed is largely determined by gravimetric acceleration, a paper plane will probably experience a lot of it when it hits the atmosphere. I'll put my money on this thing skipping across the upper atmosphere until it either disintegrates or burns up.

Though, it might make a good Straight Dope question...

[ED @ Jan 16th 2008 7:36PM]

aguiluz:
You say the intense heat of the sun is actually infrared and ultaviolet. May I remind you that all frequencies of visible light carry more energy than infrared? There's nothing especially hot about IR, it's just energy that our eyes don't react to.

[White_Pheonix @ Jan 16th 2008 7:53PM]

The problem is that different layers of the atmosphere have different terminal velocities, but, more importantly, that there is not terminal velocity in space. Thus, it needs to be able to burn off the excess momentum before it burns up, and to do this, it needs to avoid burning up.

[Hung @ Jan 16th 2008 8:26PM]

@ vince

This is straight up bullshit.
(1) The flag isn't still standing. The moon has loose soil and anything planted in it (especially a flimsy flag) will dislodge eventually, if not immediately. NASA's position on the situation is that they cannot locate the flag and doesn't care to, since it has probably been destroyed.
(2) Friction creates some heat, but most the heat is caused by the rapid compression of air in front of the falling object. This is especially true with streamlined objects that largely reduce friction. Basic high school thermodynamics (PV=nRT anyone?).
(3) "Gravimetric acceleration" isn't a real term. The word he was looking for is "gravitational." No, it's not fancy, but it's what anyone-not-full-of-himself would use. We used gravimetric analysis in my chemistry class last year, and it's based on hydrometry or fluid mechanics and has to do with mass, not weight. Please, if you don't know what a word means, don't use it. I realized you were talking out of your ass at this point, although several other clues tipped me off.
(4) Skipping across the upper atmosphere? I'm seriously amazed. Fucking epic.

I really hope no one actually believes Vince. It's mind-bottling the crap he wrote. So crazy that it wraps up all my thoughts and puts them in a bottle.

[Vince @ Jan 18th 2008 5:45AM]

Hey Hung, I don't get the ad hominem attack, but whatever.

So which part's BS? The Apollo 11 flag didn't spontaneously turn to dust, and neither will a piece of paper tossed out of the ISS. What happened in the 40 years since Apollo 11...who knows and who cares, it's not relevant.

Friction...the researchers doing the study claimed thier mach 7 wind tunnel test were enough to heat a scale model up to 300°C, and the plane will be doing mach 20 when it reaches the atmosphere. That's not compression and I'm pretty darned sure it wasn't ionic plasma...So what was your point again? Oh yeah, that friction won't heat up the model. *BZZZZT* wrong again. The Ideal Gas Law is also irrelevant, nice try. Though, I'd have given you bonus points if you'd come up with slightly less irrelevant Gay-Lussack's law.

BTW, it's 'mind boggling' not 'mind bottling'. At least end with the right damned insult.

[Hung @ Jan 18th 2008 7:06PM]

@Vince (I never intended this to be so one-sided)

Hey, I got an idea, how about we listen to some ROCKET SCIENTISTS and not some guys trying to throw a paper plane from outer space (for goodness sake, they call themselves the Japan Origami Airplane Association!)?

Though HowStuffWorks isn't the foremost expert on aerodynamics, I trust them (and basic physical science) way more than I do you: http://science.howstuffworks.com/question308.htm.

The plane won't be doing Mach 20 for several reasons. (1) It's a fucking paper plane. I don't give a shit if you flew it on Jupiter. Unless the plane is shaped like a needle and weighed as much as ice, it'll glide gracefully as do all such planes. (2) Let's play along (in the most condescending way possible) with your assumption that the plane is so well designed (they do origami, after all, which I'm assuming is full-contact) that it doesn't catch any air when it enters any part of the atmosphere. Actually, let's not play along. That assumption is two notches away from believing in flying spaghetti monsters.* (3) Unless they put a navigation system on the plane, they wouldn't be able to guide it. An uncontrollable object falling faster than a bullet could definitely be considered a stupid-ass idea. In other words, it's not going to travel that fast. The wind tunnel experiment was intended to gauge how well the plane withstands the intense gusts in the upper atmosphere and not the static air that it'll cut through when falling. Please don't forget this: it's a fucking paper plane.

You're an idiot. Gay-Lussac's Law is obsolete. Not only that, PV=nRT incorporates G-L and all other ideal gas laws, as every pre-pubescent chemistry student knows (not me, by the way). You preferring Gay-Lussac's Law proves that you have never taken (or at least paid attention in) any basic physics or chemistry courses, failingly used Google as a 2-minute teacher, and don't know what you're talking about. This is the point I'm trying to make: you spew pure horseshit in a poor attempt to make yourself seem smart.

Actually, I made this point long ago. Apparently, so have you.

P.S. I didn't the wrong idiom. Not wanting to end on a mean or sour note, I referenced a film. Perhaps the movie is a little obscure. The actors are relatively unheard of: Will Ferrell and Jon Heder. I think it's called "Blades of Glory" and was a Top Ten Box Office hit for... I want to say TWO months, but that seems like a long time for such an obscure work that you haven't seen.

Hey! A sour note! Whodathunkit?



*No offense to Pastafarians.

[yoyodude64 @ Jan 16th 2008 6:23PM]

NASA sometimes has trouble bringing the shuttles down from orbit without catching fire...why do the Japanese think they can do it with paper?

I just hope they remember to paper clip the nose.

[liin @ Jan 16th 2008 8:57PM]

Maybe they don't. Maybe it's hella fun for them to see if they can embarrass NASA with a $100 stunt.

By the way, ask any U.S. astronaut who's been on ISS. They'd rather live in the sections built by the Russians ( more windows, bigger too, nice view, but NASA regards those design as unsafe ) or Japanese ( more space to move around ).

[Adam @ Jan 16th 2008 6:25PM]

Is NASA turning to 5th graders now for input?

[liin @ Jan 16th 2008 6:29PM]

No, sir, it wasn't me, it's some Japanese astronauts in outer space.

[[e-mail] @ Jan 16th 2008 10:42PM]

hahahha thats gold.

[Ally @ Jan 16th 2008 6:29PM]

How does this help anyone?


or are we making shuttles from paper that can house shrunken 3cm astronauts?

[CharlieX @ Jan 16th 2008 6:35PM]

So this is basically littering from orbit

[DeoWulf @ Jan 16th 2008 6:36PM]

You mean paper 'planes', not 'airplanes'. At least, not until they re-enter. When I read the title I thought some stupid people were going to try to fly paper airplanes in space, not just fire them towards earth.

[DT @ Jan 16th 2008 6:38PM]

Why?

[Paul @ Jan 16th 2008 11:33PM]

Why Not?

[Paul @ Jan 16th 2008 11:33PM]

Why Not?

[Paul @ Jan 16th 2008 11:34PM]

(hint... if the page doesn't load after submitting, don't hit refresh)

[toyotaboy @ Jan 17th 2008 1:38PM]

backup in case the radio equipment fails? They can just launch a note down to NASA.

[waiownsyou @ Jan 16th 2008 6:51PM]

I think the picture of the title of this article is misleading. After reading it a third time, it seems like the Japanese are trying to create a shuttle based on the shape of an origami paper airplane, not an actual paper shuttle. MMMMK?

[mik @ Jan 16th 2008 11:13PM]

"Japan Origami Airplane Association" think that pretty much explains everything..

[Ian @ Jan 16th 2008 6:58PM]

ok so when u click the read link, it says they just want to test to see if it is possible to get a paper plane to the earth. they want the astronauts to wirte a message on it for who ever finds it.

so it might be kinda kool really

[Ian @ Jan 16th 2008 6:59PM]

good thought but no they arent. they really are trying to make a paper plane that can make it to the ground. (nothing in it though just the plane)

[Carbonize @ Jan 16th 2008 7:16PM]

Would a paper plane have enough mass to break through the Earth's atmosphere?

[Jeff R. @ Jan 16th 2008 7:19PM]

Really Big Paper Clip!!!

[Chris Taylor @ Jan 16th 2008 10:41PM]

its air? the only things that lack enough mass to get through would be helium and hydrogen :-) The only thing that would keep it in orbit would be angular velocity. if you threw it AT the earth with sufficient force to "hit" the atmosphere it would come down. It would slow down so quickly (lack of mass and lots of drag) that it would quickly fall below even the lowest velocity needed to stay in orbit. The trick would be launching it on the night side so it entered the atmosphere before sun rise. One other concern is moisture. If it has a a lot of moisture it would FREEZE out in space and might then have enough mass to burn up on reentry. So they would need to make sure its pretty dry.

[Joe @ Jan 16th 2008 7:39PM]

Let's juat hope it won't rain where that thing will land.

[Joe @ Jan 16th 2008 7:41PM]

*just*

[Chris Taylor @ Jan 16th 2008 10:43PM]

Actually you can get waterproof paper :-) not sure how heat resistant it is though (advise launching when its night)

[Sauerkraut @ Jan 16th 2008 7:50PM]

So I guess they can write messages to Nasa on the plane in case of a computer failure lol

[[e-mail] @ Jan 16th 2008 10:45PM]

dont laugh, you'll make the japs angry...

they might be serious about this paper plane communications thing

[Brandon @ Jan 16th 2008 7:55PM]

If a boulder sized meteoroid can't make it's way to the ground from space then I doubt that a tiny scrap of folded paper will make it. Unless the Japanese have invented some crazy paper made from the tiles on the space shuttle.

[john @ Jan 16th 2008 8:04PM]

I wanna see what kind of kinetic energy a little piece of paper traveling 5300 miles an hour has as it hits some guy on the ground.

[Ayle @ Jan 16th 2008 9:33PM]

weight of a standard a4 sheet: 2*10^-2
speed when hitting the upper layer of the atmosphere(I used the shuttle orbiting speed): 7600 m/s
kinetic energy when hitting the upper layer of the atmoshphere:
~577kJ.... for reference that more than a average car doing 60mph. But since it has a low mass and all that energy is from speed and it has a low terminal velocity in the athmoshere, there shouldn't be any problem.

[ChrisG @ Jan 16th 2008 8:24PM]

this sounds like a story from the union.

[ChrisG @ Jan 16th 2008 8:24PM]

sorry i meant onion

[David @ Jan 16th 2008 8:26PM]

...and NASA is going to spend how much on this?

[rickane58 @ Jan 16th 2008 9:55PM]

Nothing. Maybe if you RTFA, you would notice that the JAPANESE are planning on doing this.

[[e-mail] @ Jan 16th 2008 10:47PM]

yeah, RTFA..

the Japaneses are paying for the paper, NASA is just going to throw it..

[Wwhat @ Jan 17th 2008 1:56AM]

Who says NASA is involved at all? it says ISS, so it's more likely the russians who'd throw it.

[liin @ Jan 16th 2008 8:32PM]

Don't blame the Japanese. Those microscopic aliens just don't like to take shuttles.

[MichaelD @ Jan 16th 2008 8:42PM]

So...if the plane falls to earth and lands somewhere other than Japan (as is most likely) will that constitute an act of war? By the most basic definition it's an ICBM.

[[e-mail] @ Jan 16th 2008 10:50PM]

hahahah dont give the japs any idea's or they'll be launching these dangerous planes at us

[harvey @ Jan 16th 2008 11:01PM]

you mean an ICPA. let me know when they strap nukes to a piece of 8x11.

[MichaelD @ Jan 17th 2008 9:05AM]

ICBM= Intercontinental--with a large range, typically fired from space.
Ballistic--a projectile
Missile--an object or weapon for throwing, hurling, or shooting (dictionary.com)

Hence "most basic defiition"

[will @ Jan 16th 2008 9:31PM]

the mass of a paper plane is very small. it's not going to be going 5300 mph

[Chris Taylor @ Jan 16th 2008 10:41PM]

Actually it will be going about 17,000mph as thats orbital velocity. :-) but because its so light with so much drag it will slow down way faster than it will heat up without the "mass" to "push" through the drag which is in reality what causes the heat up. IF you could "slown down" the shuttle to say mach 3 it would not heat up on reentry at all.

[Chris Taylor @ Jan 16th 2008 10:03PM]

I was saying this 15 years ago. I am confident a paper airplane will survive unscathed. SPEED does not kill on reentry. MASS AND SPEED kill on reentry. ITs not the 17,000 mph reentry that causes the shuttle to get hot. its the shuttle MASSIVE MASS that resists slowing down at 17,000mph that heats it up. the very tiny WISPS of the upper atmosphere will be more than enough to slow the paper plane down long before it gets anywhere near hot enough to be at risk of burning up. Speed is relative when it comes to atmospheric friction and it wont take much to slow a paper plane down. I think it would slip right into the atmosphere slowing down the whole way way in advance of any potential "heat up" I am not sure what the upper limit is but I am betting even if you "fired" the plane into the atmosphere at 30,000mph I still think it would slow down way faster than it would heat up. As you stated the atmosphere is layers. it gradually gets thicker and thicker. I think the plane will slow down way faster than the atmosphere will thicken up.