747 in space

[DerekL1963]

I believe this was the novel I (and perhaps the OP?) were thinking of: http://www.amazon.com/Orbit-Thomas-Block/dp/147015241X

There's also this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starflight:_The_Plane_That_Couldn%27t_Land

Neither features a 747 in space, sooo.....

[PakledHostage]

A 747 weighs around 400 tons.

Ignoring the absurdity of this discussion, the maximum gross takeoff weight of a B747-400 is 875 000 pounds, but you wouldn't need to boost that much into orbit.

The operating empty weight (i.e. the weight of the airplane) is about 395 000 pounds and as much as ~375 000 pounds of the gross takeoff weight can be fuel. Useful payload is whatever's left over. If you want to carry more than 100 000 pounds of payload, you've got to load less fuel. The maximum zero fuel weight (MZFW) is 542 000 pounds however. The MZFW is the heaviest the aircraft can be without fuel, meaning that the maximum payload is about 150 000 pounds. Presumably you wouldn't need fuel up there, so at most you'd need to lift the MZFW into orbit.

[Mr Shifty]

Neither features a 747 in space, sooo.....

True. The publication date for the novel I linked is 1982. The OP began with

Many years ago

Maybe my memory is especially faulty, but I'm liable to get details wrong when remembering something from a decade or 3 ago. I couldn't find any other similar novel using my google-fu.

[K^2]

Cabin pressure would be the least of your problems, I think.

The whole airframe would rip itself as soon as it hits Mach 1.

You don't have to ever hit Mach 1 in atmo. Yes, doing entire ascent at speeds a 747 can survive will cost you a lot of extra fuel, but it's not impossible.

Leaky cabin is the biggest problem, but if you had some time to prepare, you might be able to fix that, at least, temporarily.

[PakledHostage]

Unrelated to the B747, but there was a DC8 back in the early 60's that was intentionally flown to Mach 1.012 in flight testing. The aircraft was later delivered to (and operated in commercial service by) Canadian Pacific Air Lines.

[Eric S]

It's not even bad sci-fi. It's drivel.

But still rates as hard-core sci-fi compared to typical SyFy channel content (is that how they spell it now? They haven't had much I'd be willing to watch on for years).

[softweir]

Of course a spacecraft in orbit isn't surrounded by hot asphalt (or concrete or whatever your parking lot is made of) - it's in the middle of a vast polar wasteland. Seriously, unless you're in LEO and thus near the (relatively warm) Earth, most of what a spacecraft 'sees' isn't the sun - the sun is a point source, it's the blackness around that dominates. (That's why Apollo 13 froze rather than boiled.) Even in LEO, you're frequently having more problems keeping warm rather than keeping cold. (That's why the hydrazine tank on USA-193 was frozen.)

When in shadow in space, the problem is, indeed, keeping warm. When in sunlight, the problem is keeping cool - this is why the ISS needs very large cooling radiators oriented in its shadow, and the shuttles needed large cooling radiators bolted to the inside of the cargo bay doors. (The shuttle was programmed to roll so the cargo bay was in shadow when other contingencies permitted.) Apollo 13 was always on the point of overheating when in sunlight, and only suffered from cold when it had been in the moon's shadow for too long.

You dismissed the heating effect of the sun, and yet go out on a bright day and you can feel its heat. The total solar energy received by an object in direct sunlight in space is 1366 watts/square metre, while an object at 25C in complete shadow will lose heat at about 400watts/square metre. (Exactly how much depends on the material.) So an object has to be a lot warmer than 25C before it will lose heat as fast as it absorbs it.

[K^2]

Yeah, but you have up to 4x the area to radiate from. Not to mention things you can do with albedo. It's not that hard to make a paint with very low albedo in 10 microns (25°C) and very high in half micron, which is where Solar radiation peaks.

Yes, if you just put a 747 in space, you'll have major heating problems. But anything you can fix with a coat of paint is not something I'd fixate on when we are contrasting that to the problem of putting a 747 in orbit in the first place.

As far as freezing in the shadow, just put it in the orbit that's never in the shadow. Problem solved.

[OtherDalfite]

When in shadow in space, the problem is, indeed, keeping warm. When in sunlight, the problem is keeping cool - this is why the ISS needs very large cooling radiators oriented in its shadow, and the shuttles needed large cooling radiators bolted to the inside of the cargo bay doors. (The shuttle was programmed to roll so the cargo bay was in shadow when other contingencies permitted.) Apollo 13 was always on the point of overheating when in sunlight, and only suffered from cold when it had been in the moon's shadow for too long.

You dismissed the heating effect of the sun, and yet go out on a bright day and you can feel its heat. The total solar energy received by an object in direct sunlight in space is 1366 watts/square metre, while an object at 25C in complete shadow will lose heat at about 400watts/square metre. (Exactly how much depends on the material.) So an object has to be a lot warmer than 25C before it will lose heat as fast as it absorbs it.

Actually, you can go in the shadow of something for quite a while and stay warm. Since the only reason we get cold on Earth when the wind blows is because the heat you are carrying transfers to the gas that is pushing past you, cooling you off.

In space, there is no gas to have heat transferred to, and you retain heat for a very long time. Unless you were in some kind of elliptical orbit where you where in the shade for about 75% or more of the orbit, I really doubt you would have to try and keep the heat, as spacecraft are designed reflectively, to not allow any heat to be transferred through the Sun's rays.

[K^2]

Actually, you can go in the shadow of something for quite a while and stay warm. Since the only reason we get cold on Earth when the wind blows is because the heat you are carrying transfers to the gas that is pushing past you, cooling you off.

In space, there is no gas to have heat transferred to, and you retain heat for a very long time. Unless you were in some kind of elliptical orbit where you where in the shade for about 75% or more of the orbit, I really doubt you would have to try and keep the heat, as spacecraft are designed reflectively, to not allow any heat to be transferred through the Sun's rays.

Losses to radiation are actually huge. The only reason you don't experience them on Earth is because you are surrounded with warm objects that radiate heat at roughly the same rate.

In space, this is a major concern. Even with a reflecting coating you are loosing on the order of 10W per square meter. Over the surface of 747 it adds up.

And as I mentioned earlier, if you want to maintain a reasonable temperature when the craft is in the sun light, you don't want the coating to be perfectly reflective across the spectrum. That's going to cost you in the shadow. It's much easier to just keep the craft always in the sun light and design around that.

[OtherDalfite]

Losses to radiation are actually huge. The only reason you don't experience them on Earth is because you are surrounded with warm objects that radiate heat at roughly the same rate.

In space, this is a major concern. Even with a reflecting coating you are loosing on the order of 10W per square meter. Over the surface of 747 it adds up.

And as I mentioned earlier, if you want to maintain a reasonable temperature when the craft is in the sun light, you don't want the coating to be perfectly reflective across the spectrum. That's going to cost you in the shadow. It's much easier to just keep the craft always in the sun light and design around that.

Huh, I had no idea. But your idea about being always in the sun is an idea in my head I've had for a while now. They'd have a large amount of electrical power, but they would have to constantly battle heat and would have to constantly make adjustment burns to maintain their orbit so they were in constant sunlight. That, and it would be more expensive to get there, seeing as how you have to spend that extra amount of fuel cancelling your equatorial velocity.

[bloodgusher]

I suspect the OP may be referring to Harry Harrison's Star Smashers of the Galaxy Rangers - which was a comedy/parody, it was *meant* to be bad, so bad it was good. (And it was, if you're familiar with the style and type of SF it was parodying.)

Yes, this was the one. I remember it having some very silly stuff, like accidentally making a teleporter out of a particle accelerator and some cheddar cheese.

[K^2]

Huh, I had no idea. But your idea about being always in the sun is an idea in my head I've had for a while now. They'd have a large amount of electrical power, but they would have to constantly battle heat and would have to constantly make adjustment burns to maintain their orbit so they were in constant sunlight. That, and it would be more expensive to get there, seeing as how you have to spend that extra amount of fuel cancelling your equatorial velocity.

You don't need to make any adjustments. See, Earth isn't a perfect sphere and orbits around it aren't perfectly closed. This can be exploited. In particular, there exist Sun-synchronous orbits. The dusk-dawn Sun-sync orbit will keep the satellite permanently out of Earth's shadow.

[Brotoro]

You can also stay in sunlight almost all the time by being in a very high orbit that's inclined by a few degrees...then you'll only possibly go into the Earth's shadow when the nodes of the orbit line up with the direction to the sun...and you could time things to be elsewhere in your orbit when that happens.

[catmando]

airframe isnt capable of air travel above 600mph..

also cabin would burst apart from the INTERNAL pressure( the cabin is designed to withstand EXTERNAL pressure)

[Canopus]

( the cabin is designed to withstand EXTERNAL pressure)

No it isn't unless you are talking about a Flying Submarine . But it would still burst in Vacuum.

[Hellbrand]

I read a book about a submarine that went to space :3 (the looking glass series of books by John ringo and Travis S. taylor)

[Nibb31]

Holy necro Batman !

[magnemoe]

It's not drivel, it's UTTERLY drivel.

I read part of a story like this however it was not an 747 but some fast supersonic plane who managed to end up in orbit because someone had hacked the autopilot so the engines run to long while gaining attitude.

Yes everybody who have played KSP see the issue here, add that even an mach 10 plane would have no chance reaching orbit.

However it avoid some of the 747 issues,

[magnemoe]

That's disturbingly awesome.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3231/3082417933_18bcf0e52c.jpg?v=0

Underwater motorcycle, do not find it so disturbing.