East takes you out,
out takes you west,
west takes you in,
in takes you east.
Port and starboard bring you back.

rmw

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.

Agreed, 100%.

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).

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?