‘I heard about this the other day, and I almost did a comic double-take.
The golf club manufacturer Element 21 is planning a publicity stunt where an cosmonaut on the International Space Station will hit a ball off the station with one of its gold-plated clubs.
No, I’m not kidding. I wish I were.
You an read about it on their (incredibly annoying overly-flash-driven) website. The idea is that an cosmonaut will stand outside the space station and smack a golf ball with the club. The business arrangement for this was made with Russia, not NASA, incidentally.
The insanity of all this is so broad and deep it’s hard to know where to start. Instead, I’ll mention just the most insane thing about it: what happens to the ball after it leaves the station? I’ll tell you: it will go on a separate orbit around the Earth. Moving at approximately 18,000 miles per hour, it is the equivalent of an invisible mine, waiting to impact some other piece of space hardware. Maybe the Shuttle? Maybe some other craft?
Orbital mechanics being what they are, the ball’s orbit will intersect the Space Station’s, so that a collision between the two is highly likely certainly possible. I have no clue what the Russians are thinking about all this. NASA claims to have given this a preliminary once-over, but not the full safety treatment.
Has everyone lost their minds? What the hell is going on?
Keith Cowing wrote a very interesting and thorough piece about this nonsense on Spaceref.com. He takes NASA and Russia to task for this, rightly so. The Russians have proven to be compliant when money is offered for stunts; it makes a difference to them between having a space program and not having one. I can sympathize with this in general, but certainly not in this specific case.
And every safety officer at NASA should be screaming bloody murder about this. Now, I can think of several ways of mitigating the safety issues, but the best and most obvious one is to not do stupid stuff like this in the first place.
Sheesh.’
March 6th, 2006 at 2:27 pm
This is Deep Space Homer, sure hope James Taylor will be around to save the situation.
March 6th, 2006 at 2:38 pm
Is it in danger of hitting the ISS no matter what direction it is hit off at?
March 6th, 2006 at 2:48 pm
How is this different than “suitsat” ? If launched AFT and inclined some degrees above the orbit path, won’t the ball move “up” and rearwards, slowing relative to the station and eventually dropping below the ISS to end up in a lower, faster orbit that will eventually degrade into the atmosphere?
March 6th, 2006 at 2:48 pm
“Is it in danger of hitting the ISS no matter what direction it is hit off at? ”
No. If you remember the “suit sat” thread a few weeks ago (sorry, can’t find the link) if you launch something backwards (i.e. opposite the direction of travel) off of an orbiting spacecraft you will not intersect the original orbit again because you’ve lowered its momentum (and raised yours by the same amount). The next time the golf ball comes around it will be in a lower orbit and traveling ahead of the ISS.
I’m surprised you didn’t mention this, Phil.
If you hit it up, down, or sideways, it *will* intersect the original orbit at the same point. If you hit it forward (in the direction of travel) it will raise the orbit and the next time around it will be above and behind the ISS. However, since the mass of the golf ball is so small, it will be affected by a much greater degree to orbital decay from atmospheric drag, and there is a non-zero risk that it could hit the station sometime in the future.
I do agree with Phil, though, that this sounds like a really stupid idea.
- Jack
March 6th, 2006 at 2:49 pm
You are absolutely right, but…
…I suspect that there is a high probability that the golf ball goes into an elliptical enough orbit that it dips into the atmosphere enough to alter its orbit, making the probability of intersecting the Space Station again rather small. The Space Station is in a pretty low orbit as these things go; in a higher orbit, straight orbital mechanics would make the re-collision very likely.
Still, wacky hijinks in exchange for money is just how the world works now. Marketing Is All.
-Rob
March 6th, 2006 at 2:55 pm
While it’s possible to put it in a non-intersecting orbit, I don’t think it’s that easy. In a spacesuit, it’s impossible to give the ball a really good whack. The odds of hitting something on ISS are non-zero in the first place, and do you want to bet your 100 billion dollar station on that?
March 6th, 2006 at 3:03 pm
What if he stands on the bottom of the station? Friction would probably slow the golf ball down … eventually …
I agree though; more orbiting space junk is probably not good.
Still, commercializing space is the next big step towards flying cars. Sure would be an embarrassment if Hubble got destroyed by a golf ball though.
(Yes, I think Hubble’s in a higher orbit than the ISS, so that would be very unlikely.)
March 6th, 2006 at 3:16 pm
Make him use a one iron, eliminating all risks.
If half is painted black, would that created adequate thermal stress?
Regardless, it is a careless act; every direction is off course.
March 6th, 2006 at 3:18 pm
[sarcasm]I’m sure this little stunt will, in the eyes of the public, help justify the enormous cost, effort, and risk being put into the ISS. Fund more science programs? Sure! Look at all the good science they’re doing now![/sarcasm]
March 6th, 2006 at 3:36 pm
Maybe they should send me up to hit the ball. Put a cup and a little golf flag on the station and I guarantee you that no golf ball I can hit will go anywhere near it.
Put a tracker on the ball and I guarantee you that with my golf skills, I’d hit any water that’s on the moon. The moon is sandy in any case, so the ball would end up there for sure and the space station would be in no danger.
Does that company make a moonwedge?
March 6th, 2006 at 3:44 pm
I also wonder what role scandium plays at that company.
March 6th, 2006 at 3:46 pm
This could be the beginning of a very sick future. Imagine companies buying their way so Russian cosmonauts (I don’t think NASA would do this) can use products in space. Is it possible to destroy the golf ball after it is hit? Maybe put a little bit of TNT in the center of the ball to cause it to explode after it is a safe distance away from the ISS?
March 6th, 2006 at 4:42 pm
it’s orbit will degrade in 4 yrs, give or take a few months. no long-term risk really.
sheesh, lighten up people. as already said, this can be safely done and is probably a lot less dangerous than suitsat. this kind of thing grabs the public’s attention, not abstract experiments about frog eggs. and by getting the public’s attention, you people get the money you need for you pretty little probes for peeping a the rest of the universe.
and phil, i’m truly dissapointed that you didn’t get your orbital mechanics straight before posting this rant. it’s the exact same kind of thing you accuse your opponents of doing.
March 6th, 2006 at 4:52 pm
Explosive in the golf ball? That would probably be a bigger risk to the crew and the ISS than the golf ball as orbital debris.
I don’t quite know what to say on this topic. To some extent I can speak about flying hardware prior to full certification. There is a process in place to fly items that are physically assembled and tested but where the documentation is not complete. There are numerous reviews and reviewers in the plan to assess risks along the way. There is a “red tag” process where items are marked and are not to be used until ground approval tells them to remove the red tag. I can certainly see a preliminary quick look and assurance by the Russians that they completed a safety analysis and everything’s copacetic that NASA would approve launch and delivery, but red tag the items until the Safety Panel approves the final analysis.
That said, it is a bit troubling. For starters, there’s really no way to keep the cosmonaut from using the items now that they’re up there. I mean, what’s a red piece of paper going to do when he suits up? Obviously if he tried to do something others deemed unsafe there would be repercussions, and doing so without approval would raise some stink on the ground for him and the Russians, but it does seem reckless from an outsider’s perspective to fly something before you know it is safe to use, and then trust the cosmonaut not to do it anyway, with or without approval.
Safety wise, I don’t really know much about orbital dynamics. Jack Haggerty’s comments seem correct, hitting it in the correct direction will slow it down and make it fall to a lower orbit, plus there is non-zero atmospheric drag that will affect the ball. However, this assumes he doesn’t hit it at a bad angle and send it veering in the wrong direction. The atmosphere probably won’t have much affect on the path at the hit, but the club could be held wrong, he misses his swing, whatever. It’s a non-zero risk. I would suspect the risk if done correctly is pretty low, but I’d certainly like the analysis to be completed.
I’m less concerned about the “appearance” this conveys with NASA canceling space science but this stunt occurring. NASA is correct, this is a paying space venture. The ISS is already there, even if the reason for being there hasn’t been lived up to yet. It really is a different situation.
I am more concerned by the appearance that the Russians can do what ever they want and NASA can’t keep them from it. I don’t really agree with the Russians’ approach to commercialization. I don’t think the ISS is best used as a way station for millionaires. This sounds like a really silly stunt that has some possible risk of damaging the station or other space hardware. It doesn’t sound like the brightest plan, to me.
March 6th, 2006 at 4:57 pm
Andy Said:
> as already said, this can be safely done and is probably a lot less dangerous than suitsat.
Justify less dangerous than suitsat.
1. Suitsat has a much better controlled launch. Far more likely to be placed into the correct trajectory.
2. Suitsat is far more affected by drag.
3. Suitsat is large enough to track with ground-based radar that tracks orbital objects down to 2 inches in diameter. That means if an intersection on a subsequent orbit is likely, it can be detected early and the ISS change course to miss. A golf ball is small enough to not be trackable (by the last numbers I know on the matter) and is small enough it would be difficult to see coming by eye.
All of which puts Suitsat inherently safer than a golf ball.
March 6th, 2006 at 5:07 pm
Maybe we should introduce the Russians to tetherball?
I guess now the astronauts will wear two space suits, in case they get a hole in one.
March 6th, 2006 at 5:11 pm
ermm, what would happen if they just hit it straight down toward earth? Earth is a pretty big target. I don’t think anyone could miss that.
March 6th, 2006 at 5:16 pm
Aside from any dangers posed by a golf ball in orbit, just going EVA itself is inherently dangerous. Though we are accustomed to seeing various spacewalks over the years doesn’t lessen the fact that such activity is not to be taken lightly and needs to be justified.
If Russia needs the money, I wish there was a clause or proclamation at the Russian Space Agency and NASA that somehow allowed corporations or individuals with big bucks to at least adapt their funding of commercial hype-in-space as an appendage to genuine scientific projects. A few hypothetical examples:
“Today Cosmonauts tested the new zero gravity boots which greatly improve traction in space and are brought to you by Nike. (i.e. Nike didn’t make the boots, they just helped pay for the research and get advertising rights.)”
“This experiment to test the chemical nature of comets by firing off an artificial comet in orbit is partially funded by Element 21 golf clubs.
Famous multi-millionaire Worthington McWorth will be allowed to ride on the International Space Station during the time his contribution to the launching of the new space telescope takes place. He’ll get to witness the space shuttle lunch from orbit.”
You may recall Stanley Kubrick’s “2001 – A Space Odyssey” foreshadowed commercialism and sponsorship in space with various (useful) devices or products advertised on the space station and lunar shuttle.
Anyway, it seems that there is no discipline, understanding or rules to provide a rational framework for this stuff.
March 6th, 2006 at 5:19 pm
Unadulterated Sarcasm Follows:
How to deal with the cosmonaut if he goes ahead with this stunt?
Simple: Order the loyal, red-blooded American Astronaut to lock the airlock behind that no-good commie, who has the gall to take money for a crazy stunt like this, after he exits the station. There, problem solved.
March 6th, 2006 at 5:20 pm
Yes, suitsat had a more controlled launch, however the golf ball should be able to be launched away from the station faster than the suitsat was pushed. Now, since they’re launcing off the back of the station (away from the direction of travel), the golf ball will actually be going slower than the station, which will cause the ball to slip into a lower orbit and pass the station. Even though it’s going slower (the inside track is shorter). Thus, it’s closer to the atmosphere (and therefore in more of it) than suitsat was at launch, and without it somehow gaining energy, there is no chance of it getting back up into the station’s higher orbit. Sure, suitsat was less aerodynamic than a round ball, but with the little atmosphere up there that hardly matters. What matters is matter, or specifically mass. The orbit of the light ball will degrade much faster than the heavy space suit, or the even heavier ISS (and look how non-aerodynamic the ISS is). So the ball is more affected by drag, not less. And the lower the ball gets, the more atmosphere there is and the faster the orbit will degrade. True, the golf ball would be hard to track from the ground. However, I believe they’re putting a transmitter in it to solve that problem. Kinda like sputnik. And even if the transmitter breaks, like I said the ISS will be in a higher orbit and so the ball won’t be able to hit it. And with all of the drag on something that light, it should burn up in the atmosphere within a few weeks.
Here is a good article by James Oberg, formerly a NASA orbital designer and now an MSNBC space analyst. It describes the orbital mechanics of suitsat, and how it would react to being pushed away from the stations in different directions. It’s an interesting read, and applies to the golf ball as well:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11102068/page/2/
March 6th, 2006 at 6:51 pm
I read an analysis which says that there is a non-zero chance of a collision with the station later, and it could be at high speeds. Plus the station is not the only thing in orbit. It cannot be guaranteed that this thing will not hit something else. No matter how you slice it, this is simply a dumb thing to do.
March 6th, 2006 at 6:53 pm
I guess you’re all too young to remember Alan Shepard did the same thing on the moon during the Apollo 14 mission.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/a14.clsout2.html
http://www.pasturegolf.com/archive/shepard.htm
http://www.njskylands.com/atusga.htm
It seems when NASA does it, it’s okay. But if anyone else tries it, it’s dangerous.
March 6th, 2006 at 7:00 pm
The ISS isn’t the only asset in that 53 degree inclination orbit. What if he hits the ball with the heel of the club? It could go off in a wide range of directions. Teeing the ball up will be non-trivial as well… i can imagine that a divot would be really hard to replace.
In that heads-of-agency press conference last week, Cowing asked Griffin whether this was the best use of the ISS, and if it could be justified to the taxpayers in multiple nations who payed for the space station. Griffin angrily answered that it was a money-making venture, not taxpayer funded, but I think he missed the point. How much is an astronaut’s time worth while on orbit? 50 grand an hour? and what if he shanks the ball and hits for instance one of the space stations solar panels?
It just goes to show a lack of seriousness and lack of any kind of a coherent plan. I guess that’s what happens when you’re doing things on the taxpayers’ dime and aren’t subject to any kind of accountability. When faceless millions are paying for your playtime, then you do things like launching golf balls off the ISS, or going 74 million dollars over budget on an asteroid mission and coming back for another 40 million.
March 6th, 2006 at 7:09 pm
Bad Albert,
When Shepard did it on the moon, the ball landed on the moon again so it didn’t pose a risk for other satellites, etc. And I think NASA didn’t exactly know or sanction what Shepard did.
March 6th, 2006 at 7:37 pm
Cindy,
Yes the ball landed on the moon but it could have hit the other astronaut or some instruments they placed on the surface. The club could have slipped out of Shepard’s hand and hit the Lunar Module. That could cause serious damage and threaten the lives of the crew.
Remember, for weight saving, the skin of the LM was extremely thin. In some places it was only a few mils thick. Buzz Aldrin was quoted as saying, ” I believe I could have poked a pencil through it.” Workers at the Grumman factory sometimes caused damage when they dropped tools inside.
With a depressurized LM, the lunar landing crew would be forced to take off from the surface pushing buttons and operating controls wearing their space suits and then make a very dangerous, unplanned space walk to get back into the Command Module. However, if you read the link I provided you will see everyone, including Mission Control was having a lot of fun with the whole thing.
March 6th, 2006 at 7:57 pm
Bad Albert, no, this is totally different. For one, Shephard knew he couldn’t hit the ball very far. It only went a few yards. Second, he was away from equipment and aimed the ball away from the LM and equipment. There was no possible way he could have damaged the LM.
On the ISS it’s totally different. In orbit, the ball will continue to move, while on the Moon the gravity and friction stopped the ball. Also, the ball will go into a separate orbit, which can intersect some other satellite or even the Shuttle.
March 6th, 2006 at 8:44 pm
If one hit the ball toward the earth at the right time and angle, it would be seen on re-entry as a very bright meteor! Then you can line up Titleist or some other golf ball manufacturer with exclusive rights to the “first gold ball in orbit” and “first gold ball meteor”. NASA funding woes are a thing of the past!
Dumb idea…
March 6th, 2006 at 8:46 pm
BA,
I worry when people talk about amateur golfers and “aiming” in the same sentence. Nothing or no one is safe when amateur golfers are in the area. Trust me I know. Shepard spoke of how he could only do the shot with one hand because of the space suit. Who knows where the club or ball could have ended up. He could accidently let it go on the backswing. Not a good thing if he was aiming away from the LM. I’m surprised they let him try it at all.
I do agree with you this ISS thing is a useless and potentially dangerous stunt. But my original point was, NASA likes to do these things and then berates others for doing the same. When the Russians tried to raise money by letting a tourist buy his way into space, NASA was all over them for it. That old geezer John Glenn also had a few things to say. But when NASA decided to send a school teacher up, it was okay. (Look what happened.) Then when that old geezer had a chance to go up again and be the first senior citizen in space, it was okay. Seems only NASA prima donnas are okay to fly on these tax payer funded missions.
March 6th, 2006 at 8:46 pm
gold = golf in the above post. Just couldn’t get that finger over from d to f apparently. Sheesh!
March 6th, 2006 at 9:28 pm
My fear is that stunts in space make us look even less critical. Leave the rampant commercialism to christmas. If it’s a small publicity stunt, a.k.a. John Glenn on the shuttle, OK. This brings attention that NASA can use. Otherwise, if it doesn’t provide science please just say no. No advertisements please.
March 6th, 2006 at 9:41 pm
is there a radio D.J. involved with this?
March 6th, 2006 at 9:42 pm
stupid human trick
March 6th, 2006 at 9:57 pm
I was rereading what I wrote in the blog entry, and while I still think a collision with the station is possible, I shouldn’t have written "highly likely". I fixed that.
March 6th, 2006 at 10:03 pm
I don’t even have my head in the stars all that much (except when I watch Star Trek, which typically doesn’t deal with these sorts of problems, thanks to those big and possibly magical main deflector dishes, but I digress) and I can see the problems that something like that would entail.
March 6th, 2006 at 11:07 pm
What we really need is two space stations. Then Dodgeball games could be arranged.
March 6th, 2006 at 11:51 pm
“Otherwise, if it doesn’t provide science please just say no.”
What’s the point in that? Is there any useful science being done on the ISS or shuttle these days? I for one don’t need to know if fruit flies can fornicate in zero-g.
Whether teachers, tourists, geriatrics or golf balls, they are still risky stunts. All agencies involved should operate by the same rules. When NASA decides to stop playing around then they can tell the others to stop too.
March 7th, 2006 at 12:15 am
“Otherwise, if it doesn’t provide science please just say no.”
What’s the point in that? Is there any useful science being done on the ISS or shuttle these days? I for one don’t need to know if fruit flies can reproduce in zero-g.
Perhaps the taxpayers of the involved countries should demand national lotteries with winners getting a trip to the ISS. At least then they would have a chance of getting a return on all the billions this is costing them (beyond that of a few very expensive baby fruit flies). Now THAT would bring some positive attention to the space program.
March 7th, 2006 at 1:34 am
Dodgeball in space. . . now that’s the best idea I heard all day. Granted, I’m in France and I overslept this morning, so I just got up — but it might well be the best idea I get to hear today too.
March 7th, 2006 at 2:32 am
http://www.astronomy.org/programs/moon/lunar-olympics.jpg
Have a look at that… Human-powered flight events — uneven parallel bars 3 metres apart — pole vaulting and high-diving of 180 feet (using metric and British so everyone feels included
) –
March 7th, 2006 at 3:19 am
“ermm, what would happen if they just hit it straight down toward earth? Earth is a pretty big target. I don’t think anyone could miss that.”
Orbital mechanics doesn’t work that way.
March 7th, 2006 at 3:21 am
“Make him use a one iron, eliminating all risks.”
LOL!
March 7th, 2006 at 3:26 am
Bad Albert, Whike it is true that the OUTER skin of the LM was very thin, the outerskin was NOT the pressure containment vessel!
March 7th, 2006 at 3:44 am
> http://www.astronomy.org/programs/moon/lunar-olympics.jpg
That scene looks a bt too risky to me, suppose during the lunar olympics there was a meteoroid strike on that glass dome, that would be tremendous loss of life.
(Or am I missing a point)
March 7th, 2006 at 3:58 am
Bronca por el Golf en la Estación Espacial
Ya se envió (http://meneame.net/story.php?id=7825), pero no salió publicada, la noticia de que se habÃa propuesto hacer un lanzamiento de golf desde la estación espacial.
En este blog (en inglés) se critica esta posibilidad ya que, aparte de ser…
March 7th, 2006 at 5:06 am
I bet if the first ball is hit a bit crappy, they will hit a few more, until they get it right. Thus increasing the chances of accidents…
March 7th, 2006 at 5:29 am
If this guys slice is as bad as mine, there should be nothing to worry about .
March 7th, 2006 at 7:02 am
Perhaps we can convince the originators of this stunt to hold off until we get to the moon. Then, see if they would be interested in opening a lucrative business of lunar golf. At least there, you can retrive the ball.
March 7th, 2006 at 7:24 am
If the golf ball was hit at a suitable direction, as determined by the appriopriate authorities, and at enough velocity, (is this possible with the ‘best’ brand (place brand here), sanctioned by NASA, PGA, and/or local Astronauts Assn.), propelled by the most suitable club, could this ball eventually drop into a Black Hole, and be the ultimate ‘Hole-in-One’?
Ivan.
PS.. How does one manage to keep the ball steady on the tee while trying to address it and then actually swing and hit it squarely?
March 7th, 2006 at 7:53 am
“Is there any useful science being done on the ISS or shuttle these days? I for one don’t need to know if fruit flies can fornicate in zero-g.”
That’s right. I forgot that the definition of “useful science” was “what Bad Albert cares about”.
Just because we might not appreciate or understand its relevance, that doesn’t make it irrelevant.
March 7th, 2006 at 8:04 am
Kaptain K,
Parts of the LM’s pressure containment vessel WERE very thin. That’s what Aldrin was so concerned about. Remember, the Apollo life support system used pure oxygen at only 5 psi so it had relatively little pressure to contain.
March 7th, 2006 at 8:17 am
Tarrkid,
It’s not that the science being done on the ISS is completely useless. The question is, is it useful at the price being paid for it? Those are some very expensive baby fruit flies.
March 7th, 2006 at 8:45 am
“it will go on a separate orbit around the Earth. Moving at approximately 18,000 miles per hour, it is the equivalent of an invisible mine, waiting to impact some other piece of space hardware. Maybe the Shuttle? Maybe some other craft?”
Phil, isn’t this a constant threat. I don’t think this golf ball will be the only piece of space trash up there.
“And every safety officer at NASA should be screaming bloody murder about this.”
NASA has safety officers? Harhar.
March 7th, 2006 at 8:49 am
“People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones” as the adage goes. And Ladies and Gentlemen, whether we like it or not, Science is in a glass house at the moment. Science in general has been taking a beating the last decade or so and unfortunately it’s gotten worse instead of better. Especially over the last year and decidedly so when the NASA budget cuts occurred so recently. So until things get better funding wise, commercialism, for better or worse, will allow Science to continue in the absence of that funding.
Ya, it sucks. Ya, I don’t like it any better than the rest of you, but we’ve a choice to make. Have the vast majority of Space Science curtailed or continue by letting some moronic company pay to have a Cosmonaut hit a golf ball in space? Not a tough call in my opinion, with a caveat of course, read on.
Okay, so with that said, now we need to look at the basic tenants of that commercialism. Granting that most of you are wise enough to understand that everything you see on TV cannot possibly be true, what’s to say that the golf ball in question actually has to be hit off the station? I mean, where is the real draw here to the television audience? Watching a golf ball fly off into space, where you’d actually be able to see it for what, maybe 5 or 10 seconds before it became lost in the vacuum? Boring. But seeing a Cosmonaut outside the ISS with a golf club, “pretending” to hit a golf ball from the station, now that’s publicity. Heck, they could CGI the golf ball in after the Cosmonaut makes his swing. After all, it’s not a commercial for the golf ball, but the club and the fact that it’s in space. Some people (not I) would find that entertaining.
Unfortunately or fortunately, I’m trying to look at this issue from a common sense point of view. If the powers that be actually decide to really hit a ball from the station, no matter the trajectory, then all of this is mute, and they are in fact the morons that people here have alluded to.
March 7th, 2006 at 9:46 am
I’m no rocket scientist and my mathematical skills suck, but I would think if it was smacked off the ISS back porch in the opposite direction, it would drop into a slower and lower orbit?
March 7th, 2006 at 9:53 am
Please correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t the golf ball and the ISS moving with the same vector? That said, how can a golf ball with a relative vector of a few centimeters per second be a significant danger?
It could be made hollow, with therefore much lower mass to be slowed by drag more quickly and allow for rapid atmospheric re-entry,,,(Boy that sentence sounds awkard).
Gary 7
March 7th, 2006 at 10:15 am
Good grief. What a lot of fuss about a golf ball. You know what? If Joe Sixpack finds this only remotely exciting in comparison to the sheer tedium of most of what is exposed to the public about space travel then this will be a roaring success in my humble opinion. NASA, in particular, are experts in making the most incredibly exciting things less interesting than watching paint dry. Where are the web-cams all over the ISS? Why can’t I watch the sun rise above the Earth every 90 minutes? Why do I have to search for ages to find the extraordinary pictures taken around Saturn? The fact that Mimas looks like the death star?
This stuff is *cool*. And *cool* is what we need for the public to be interested. When they’re interested, the object less to their tax dollars being spent. Then we all win — more science, more invention, more exploration and more knowledge about our solar system.
On the original subject, I cannot accept that if this was that risky that the Russians would be allowing it, cash or no cash. If hitting this golf ball really was tantamount to dynamiting the ISS this would not happen. Besides which, since the whole ISS lark has been monumentally messed up by all involved, any money at all (be it tourists, golf balls or pizza adverts) is A-OK by me; after all, tax-payers across the globe have footed the bill for this monstrosity. If NASA hadn’t canceled every good idea and didn’t have *outrageous* over-expectations for the shuttle then we might actually have something up there where science could be performed, but they did, and we don’t. Most of the hardware sits here, gathering dust, on the ground.
It’s a golf ball folks. It gets ordinary people interested in space. That’s how you pay for all the science and all those wonderful missions that have been cancelled recently. Get a grip (pun intended)
Toby S.
March 7th, 2006 at 10:23 am
NASA has pulled stunts before, but that is no reason that they should bite their tongue when safety is at issue. If they spoke up against the Russians, that might make them hypocrital (a very common human trait shared by all), but it’s better than not speaking up and incurring a risk or actual damage/loss.
And the risks seem real. Can I add one more nasty possibility? Someone mentioned that the ball has to be held steady. It will probably be attached to something. If the ball is not hit hard enough, what if it continues “holding on”, even momentarily, to whatever it’s attached to, and takes off at an angle downwards into the space station itself? Or how might the golf club’s impact with the ball be effected by whatever contraption is holding the ball in place? Could you, in fact, end up hitting sideways to a solar panel or something else?
But I’ll actually be more worried if the ball takes off as planned and is never heard from again. There’s a slippery slope here, and it’s going to lead to more dangerous stunts, and accidents — particularly if everyone starts doing these things. That will lead to a growing feeling that such things are safe; and doubts will be muffled when people feel too “humble” to criticize one another.
I agree with a lot of what’s been said already: this stunt is a bad symptom of commercialization combined with poor funding for real science.
March 7th, 2006 at 10:53 am
Chip Said:
>Aside from any dangers posed by a golf ball in orbit, just going EVA itself is inherently dangerous. Though we are accustomed to seeing various spacewalks over the years doesn’t lessen the fact that such activity is not to be taken lightly and needs to be justified.
This would not be a unique EVA specifically for this event. Rather, the golf drive would be timelined in to an EVA to accomplish other required tasks. The additional risk to an astronaut who is already on EVA is negligible.
>Anyway, it seems that there is no discipline, understanding or rules to provide a rational framework for this stuff.
It’s not something NASA really wants to do. They don’t want that kind of commercialization. But the politics involved dealing with Russia are complex, and it doesn’t seem NASA can do a lot without a strong justification. “Tourist on Space Station under construction” didn’t seem to work.
BigT383, I followed your comments on the orbital dynamics. Good article from Oberg.
Bad Albert Said:
>I guess you’re all too young to remember Alan Shepard did the same thing on the moon during the Apollo 14 mission.
>It seems when NASA does it, it’s okay. But if anyone else tries it, it’s dangerous.
No, it’s not who is doing it, it is the conditions of what is occurring.
Kaptain K Said:
>Bad Albert, Whike it is true that the OUTER skin of the LM was very thin, the outerskin was NOT the pressure containment vessel!
I’m pretty sure the pressure containment skin was the really thin part. However, it was covered on the interior with close out panels so the crew wouldn’t accidentally put an elbow through the skin while struggling into their suits. I don’t think it was exposed to the exterior, either. My links evaporated on me, so I can’t dig up references to double check at the moment.
Gary Ansorge Said:
>Please correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t the golf ball and the ISS moving with the same vector? That said, how can a golf ball with a relative vector of a few centimeters per second be a significant danger?
Besides the direct threat of thumping something on departure, there is the threat of strikes on subsequent orbits. The relative velocity difference should slow the golf ball and send it into a lower orbit, where it doesn’t pose a threat. Knock the golf ball the wrong direction, though, and that changes the dynamics.
Dagger Said:
>…what’s to say that the golf ball in question actually has to be hit off the station? I mean, where is the real draw here to the television audience? Watching a golf ball fly off into space, where you’d actually be able to see it for what, maybe 5 or 10 seconds before it became lost in the vacuum? Boring. But seeing a Cosmonaut outside the ISS with a golf club, “pretending†to hit a golf ball from the station, now that’s publicity. Heck, they could CGI the golf ball in after the Cosmonaut makes his swing. After all, it’s not a commercial for the golf ball, but the club and the fact that it’s in space. Some people (not I) would find that entertaining.
That’s the best suggestion yet (other than not doing anything).
March 7th, 2006 at 11:18 am
>> But seeing a Cosmonaut outside the ISS with a golf club,
>> “pretending†to hit a golf ball from the station, now that’s publicity.
>That’s the best suggestion yet (other than not doing anything)
Agreed, 100%.
March 7th, 2006 at 12:48 pm
The velocity at which the golfball could hit ISS could only be the velocity at which it leaves the station, which is likely to be a lot less than 20m/s when hit by a guy in a spacesuit. If worst came to worst and the ball got banged from the tee straight into a module or solar panel, would it be likely to cause damage at those speeds? A golf ball’s pretty elastic after all, wouldn’t it deform and absorb the blow if it hit a pressure hull at those speeds?
If the ball is given only one impetus while in the station’s orbit, the new orbit will theoretically intercept the station’s orbit, no matter which direction it’s hit. If the station’s orbit is circular, then the ball’s new orbit will be an ellipse that touches the station’s orbit at the point it was hit.
The worst case for collision, orbital mechanics-wise, would be if the ball is hit at a perfect right angle to the station’s path. This would (theoretically) produce an orbit that is the same as the ISS’s, but at a slight angle (on the order of a few minutes of arc, I think). This would mean its orbit would intercept the ISS’s twice every orbit at the time that the ISS is also at those points. But this is improbable to the point of impossibility, I would say.
Chances are the orbit would actually be at least slightly different to the ISS’s, producing a different period, so that when the ball returned to intersect the ISS’s orbit, the station will be either behind or in front of the ball, depending whether it was hit backwards or forwards. This could in theory produce a collision eventually as the ball catches up with the station or vice versa, but in reality faint drag from the atmosphere would lower the ball’s orbit over time. I don’t imagine it would take desperately long for the orbit to be lowered by the few meters it would require to miss the station completely.
None of which addresses the question of intercepting another satellite, which probably would occur at a difference in velocity of hundreds or thousands of metres per second. Eh, one golf-ball I find it difficult to get upset about; there’s a heck of a lot of junk up there, one piece more or less isn’t going to make a lot of difference. And at least this piece will have a transmitter to help track it.
Still, I guess on balance I’m against it on the principle that we don’t need any more junk up there, but I’m not going to get excited about it.
Now, to consider the trivial aspects: do golf-balls still contain a blob of mercury inside? If so, you could use a weakly magnetic tee to keep it in place. Just a thought.
March 7th, 2006 at 12:57 pm
Actually, I just realised that if the ball is giving any vertical vector, the ball’s orbit would intercept the station’s in two places also, but again the period would be different to the station’s so there’d be no synchronization, meaning more misses.
March 7th, 2006 at 1:38 pm
I don;t think that the period would be significantly diferent. But even if it is, there will be some future date where an integral number of golf ball orbits take the exact same amount of time as an integral number if ISS orbits and then you have a problem, Houston.
March 7th, 2006 at 1:49 pm
I believe you’re all missing the point: with the funding cuts effecting all areas of govt., especially hitting the sciences, what better way to pick up some additional funding than to offer product manufacturers some “product placement” time, or actual “perfoms in space” advertising? Think of the revenue which could be generated. Can’t you just see the outside of the shutlle covered in product advertising? Loungewear worn inside the ISS made by the top designers and displayed nightly on the evening news? (They’ve already done it with a ball point pen.) I think the Russians have beaten us at our own game – this is capitalism at its highest level…
March 7th, 2006 at 9:30 pm
Why can’t we make money on the space program? We could sell the naming rights to the remaining shuttles and the ISS. I think Motel 8 or Best Western might be interested in the ISS. Just think we could have a shuttle named ExxonMobile Valdez. Or a Microsoft Gates Explorer Shuttle. How about the TRUMP Shuttle. With only 3 shuttles we could have a bidding war. Put it on eBay. I also think the next season of survivor would do well on ISS. Then people would care. I am only half joking.
rmw
March 7th, 2006 at 10:25 pm
Remember the rules of orbital mechanics:
East takes you out,
out takes you west,
west takes you in,
in takes you east.
Port and starboard bring you back.
March 8th, 2006 at 6:29 am
Ruidh, the period will be different. If the station has a collision cross section of say 100 metres, then at 10m/s velocity difference the period only has to be ten seconds different to miss the station on the return. I should stop being lazy and work out the orbits, I guess, but I’ve got a few things to do first. Maybe later….
March 8th, 2006 at 9:21 am
100 meters 10m/s is realy fast !!
March 8th, 2006 at 2:34 pm
About 20mph, not terribly fast for a golf-ball.
March 8th, 2006 at 2:41 pm
Dwayne Hicks, stop blowing smoke rings at people. Eat a handful of foliage, anchor yourself, and take a nap.