Alternate headline: Teeing Me Off
Well, despite many protests (here and here, for example) Russian cosmonaut Mikhail Tyurin went ahead and hit a golf ball off the International Space Station.
It was a stunt paid for by a golf club company, and the cash-strapped Russian Space agency eagerly accepted the money. I am of two minds about this, since I like the idea of private companies supporting space travel, but I also think it can go too far. Hitting the golf ball into space was a silly gimmick, but I also think it’s stupidly dangerous. It only massed three grams, but at orbital speeds it could destroy another satellite. The odds are low, but why purposely increase the amount of junk floating in space?
The company has already jumped in and, according to a peeved-sounding NASA official, grossly exaggerated what happened, too:
That drive went 1 billion miles (1.6 billion kilometers) — or will by the time it eventually comes down in a couple years — said Nataliya Hearn, the president of Element 21 Golf Company. [...]
That’s a huge exaggeration, according to NASA’s lead spacewalk flight director, Holly Ridings. She said NASA’s calculations are that golf balls would only stay up two to three days, which would put the drive closer to a mere million miles (1.6 million kilometers).
I’ll say I’m surprised the ball will come down as quickly as a few days. That implies it will dip pretty low into our atmosphere, which will slow it and drop it more. I wouldn’t think a guy in spacesuit would be able to hit it hard enough to change the orbit of the ball that much.
Anyway, I can’t leave this issue without noting some Bad Astronomy by NASA:
NASA spacewalk commentator Rob Navias, who was not broadcasting in golf’s traditional hushed tones, noted that Tyurin’s shot sliced to the right.
That’s a joke, of course, but the pedant in me must point out that a golf slice happens due to the way the spinning golf ball interacts with the air. There’s no air up there. That’s why, in space, no one can hear you yell "Fore!"
Anyway, I fear this will not be the last of the dumb things done to make money in space. I’m not sure how much to worry about space banners, for example, which will be big lit-up banners in orbit hawking commercial products; this has been proposed realistically and could do serious damage to ground-based astronomy. The list goes on and on. I’m not a big fan of regulating what goes on in space, but if garbage like this golf shot keeps up, I may change my mind.
November 23rd, 2006 at 10:41 pm
« […] I like the idea of private companies supporting space travel, but I also think it can go too far. »
Soon we’ll enjoy viewing giant MacDonald’s, or Playboy Bunny, or Disney’s Mickey Mouse, or Apple’s Apple banners orbiting Earth !
November 23rd, 2006 at 10:42 pm
I’m no fan of space commercialism, either, at least not at this early point. Until some international concensus can be reached on how space should be treated, responsible use should be exercised. What little there is, I feel, should be of benefit to everyone. Communications and weather satellites, orbital telescopes, and peaceful research habitats come to mind as fitting in this category. A golf ball floating around is doing noone any good.
November 23rd, 2006 at 10:42 pm
“… I like the idea of private companies supporting space travel, but I also think it can go too far.”
Soon we’ll enjoy viewing giant MacDonald’s, or Playboy Bunny, or Disney’s Mickey Mouse, or Apple’s Apple banners orbiting Earth !
November 23rd, 2006 at 10:47 pm
It would have been more interesting if they put a transmitter in the golf ball then they could follow where it goes. I wonder if the golf ball had dimples? they wouldn’t do any good in the airless void of space.
Overall I don’t think adding one piece of space junk is anything to lose sleep over. Ultimately it will burn up. Obviously golf shooting ranges in orbit wouldn’t be a good thing.
November 23rd, 2006 at 10:51 pm
Worst yet, we may be exposed to giant biblical quotes, or portraits of pop stars, or animated billboards orbiting Earth.
November 23rd, 2006 at 11:14 pm
Giles said: “Worst yet, we may be exposed to giant biblical quotes, or portraits of pop stars, or animated billboards orbiting Earth.”
Well, that would start a new space race, of sorts: there’d be a scramble to see who could develop & launch the first ground-to-space-billboard weapon system!
November 23rd, 2006 at 11:27 pm
“big lit-up banners in orbit hawking commercial products; this has been proposed realistically and could do serious damage to ground-based astronomy. ”
That’s a bit hyperbolic, Phil. If advertising is so large as to be visible from Earth by the naked eye (which it would have to be, in order to be effective) then that implies inexpensive access to space. So, by the time we have big banners orbiting the earth, the ground-based telescopes might be in the Shackleton or de Gerlache craters, adjuncts to the polar lunar base.
Alternatively, we can plan for the occultations that would occur on every orbit. Those occultations would be very useful indeed to earthbound astronomers.
November 23rd, 2006 at 11:33 pm
Well, it’ll have company; I think some of Tiger Woods’ sliced Ryder Cup balls are still up there, actually…
November 23rd, 2006 at 11:35 pm
CR had the same thought I did: Let’s keep space unregulated, because then, they have the freedom to put up their ugly billboards, and we have the freedom to shoot the flipping things down!
(Realistically, of course, we’d have to ask where the money for the anti-billboard weaponry would come from. There’s lots of money in advertising, not so much in the pockets of amateur astronomers and Joe Public.)
November 24th, 2006 at 1:18 am
“It only massed three grams…”
Huh??? A standard golf ball masses 45 grams!
November 24th, 2006 at 2:30 am
The great thing about space is that you can substitute a golfball and a ping-pong ball, and they will have the same trajectory off the club. Why cart those extra 21 g into space, when a gass-filled skin will do the job? Yet another NASA conspiracy to explore…
Does anyone know which way he hit it, relative to the orbital direction of the space station?
Finally, if you really want to clear dangerous, useless clutter from space, then how about taking down the ISS?
November 24th, 2006 at 3:57 am
“there’d be a scramble to see who could develop & launch the first ground-to-space-billboard weapon system!”
I’d donate to that
November 24th, 2006 at 4:33 am
I like the idea of private companies supporting space travel, but I also think it can go too far.
So what about Richard Brandson and Virgin Galactic?
November 24th, 2006 at 5:29 am
Is this how we’re going to colonise the Galaxy? With Niblicks, Mashies and little white dimpled balls?
November 24th, 2006 at 6:15 am
I believe that the craft and systems being developed by Virgin Galactic will be of little importance in the long run. The name sais it all, for wherabouts in the galaxy will the “spaceship” (more like artillery round) actually go? For space to be a commercial success companies should not be looking into sending a few rich men into the sky, but rather on getting as much cargo into ORBIT as possible. There are no resources in LEO, HEO or anywhere you could conceivably travel. Once the supplies exist, people will be more willing to develop more efficient and safe means of moving people up there. Perhaps the money wasted on parabolic flights and golf balls shjould be spent on developing a space elevator, but thats another can of worms. Also, I believe that to colonise the moon the space equivilant of the Berlin Airlift will be required to send a constant stream of cargo to the surface, in waiting for the first humans to live there on a permanent basis.
November 24th, 2006 at 6:34 am
I believe a contract is already in place to put a Nike “swoosh” on the face of the moon.
November 24th, 2006 at 8:26 am
The golf ball is so light because 3 grams hitting a satellite is less damaging than a 45 grams ball. Also, with such a light weight, the tenuous atmospheric drag has a lot more effect. That is perhaps one of the parameters the Nasa people took into account when they said the ball would reenter in a few days.
November 24th, 2006 at 8:54 am
IIRC the ball does indeed have a tracking device in it, since it is too small to be tracked by radar.
November 24th, 2006 at 8:55 am
And I’m still getting an error page every single time I post here. Very annoying.
November 24th, 2006 at 8:55 am
Regex ID: 18261 () appears to be an invalid regex string! Please fix it in the Blacklist control panel.
Warning: Cannot modify header information – headers already sent by (output started at /home/badastro/domains/badastronomy.com/public_html/bablog/wp-content/plugins/SK2/sk2_util_class.php:208) in /home/badastro/domains/badastronomy.com/public_html/bablog/wp-comments-post.php on line 55
Warning: Cannot modify header information – headers already sent by (output started at /home/badastro/domains/badastronomy.com/public_html/bablog/wp-content/plugins/SK2/sk2_util_class.php:208) in /home/badastro/domains/badastronomy.com/public_html/bablog/wp-comments-post.php on line 56
Warning: Cannot modify header information – headers already sent by (output started at /home/badastro/domains/badastronomy.com/public_html/bablog/wp-content/plugins/SK2/sk2_util_class.php:208) in /home/badastro/domains/badastronomy.com/public_html/bablog/wp-comments-post.php on line 57
Warning: Cannot modify header information – headers already sent by (output started at /home/badastro/domains/badastronomy.com/public_html/bablog/wp-content/plugins/SK2/sk2_util_class.php:208) in /home/badastro/domains/badastronomy.com/public_html/bablog/wp-includes/pluggable-functions.php on line 272
November 24th, 2006 at 12:13 pm
ioresult writes:
“The golf ball is so light because 3 grams hitting a satellite is less damaging than a 45 grams ball.”
Forgive the poor physics understanding of a Chemist, but how is the mass of the ball a factor? F=ma. The force imparted from the club will be the same regardless of the ball’s mass. The result from striking a lighter ball would be a faster moving ball, but a ball that still contains the same kinetic energy as a standard ball. Wouldn’t the force imparted if the ball later strikes the station be the same regardless of the ball’s mass?
Is this lower mass possibly also the reason for the unexpected short lifespan before the ball’s orbit decays? If a standard ball will be hit at 10 m/s (as has been suggested by BA), will a ball with 1/15 of the mass be hit at 150 m/s?
November 24th, 2006 at 12:19 pm
I think that an increasingly casual attitude about being in space is a good thing. It says we are feeling a lot safer up there or that we are more prepared to absorb tiny risk increments in order to behave in a human (rather than military) fashion. Or both. This needs to be the way people think about space travel before it can be something that will be embraced in a commercial risk analysis session, and we need companies wanting to mine asteroids from bases on the moon (figuratively speaking) if there will be any really substantial use of space.
November 24th, 2006 at 1:00 pm
Ed Minchau said:
>That’s a bit hyperbolic, Phil. If advertising is so large as to be visible from Earth by the naked eye (which it would have to be, in order to be effective) then that implies inexpensive access to space. So, by the time we have big banners orbiting the earth, the ground-based telescopes might be in the Shackleton or de Gerlache craters, adjuncts to the polar lunar base.
1. How would these affect non-visual telescopy? Such as radiotelescopes?
2. How wouls these affect amateur astronomy, setting up your 4 incher in the backyard? I don’t think that will ever be replaced by scopes on the moon, barring colonists.
3. Think how many more UFO sightings we can have, what with lots of flashing objects swooping around in the sky. Hey, if the Moon can be mistaken for a UFO, why not a falshing McDonalds logo?
Ezelite said:
> Perhaps the money wasted on parabolic flights and golf balls shjould be spent on developing a space elevator, but thats another can of worms.
That is actively in work, by another commercial venture.
One Eyed Jack said:
>Forgive the poor physics understanding of a Chemist, but how is the mass of the ball a factor? F=ma. The force imparted from the club will be the same regardless of the ball’s mass. The result from striking a lighter ball would be a faster moving ball, but a ball that still contains the same kinetic energy as a standard ball. Wouldn’t the force imparted if the ball later strikes the station be the same regardless of the ball’s mass?
Presumably a lighter ball will be slowed by drag faster, so the eventual impact will have less momentum and less kinetic energy.
>Is this lower mass possibly also the reason for the unexpected short lifespan before the ball’s orbit decays? If a standard ball will be hit at 10 m/s (as has been suggested by BA), will a ball with 1/15 of the mass be hit at 150 m/s?
Yes, but not for velocity, but rather atmospheric drag. Yes, there is still atmosphere – very thin, but enough to drag ojects, decay their orbits, and cause them to fall. That’s why the ISS has booster thrusters. Drag is affected by cross-sectional area and surface factors. Assuming the same surface and same diameter, an object that is lighter will have less momentum, so the same amount of drag force will slow it down quicker, making it fall sooner.
November 24th, 2006 at 1:26 pm
Assuming that the mass of the club is much larger than the mass of the ball, the speed of the ball isn’t affected much by it’s mass. It’ll head out at twice the speed of the club, minus losses due to inelasticity or whatever. So the assumption that the force imparted to the ball is independent of the mass is quite wrong.
November 24th, 2006 at 2:05 pm
“I believe a contract is already in place to put a Nike “swoosh†on the face of the moon”
Only if Hello Kitty don’t bulldoze whiskers on it first. Anyhow, I’d rather advertising than full spectrum dominance. Although, i guess, that has to come first…
November 24th, 2006 at 5:07 pm
Who here thinks that private companies haven’t been involved at every level of space exploration? It’s a huge mistake to think that there’s some sort of separation between the government and the private interests. Lockheed, Martin Marietta, Hughes, etc. are all entirely intertwined with the public space works.
Rob P.
November 24th, 2006 at 5:31 pm
Even if the total kinetic energy of a 45 gram ball is the same as the total energy of a 3 gram ball, the lower density (and faster velocity) of the lighter ball will increase the atmospheric drag. Therefore the lighter ball’s orbit will decay faster.
Also, if the lighter ball was actually moving at a speed that increased directly proportionately as its mass decreased (and I can’t reason out whether or not this is the case), wouldn’t it drop into a much lower orbit if it were shot straight backward off the back of the ISS than the more massive ball would? The more massive ball would after all have a much lower speed, and thus it would be in a higher orbit.
November 24th, 2006 at 8:47 pm
If the collision between the club and the ball is elastic, the difference in velocity between them has the same magnitude before and after the collision. The club won’t be going any faster after the collision than it was before, so the fastest the ball can be travelling after the collision is twice the speed of the club before the collision.
Any faster would violate conservation of energy, unless the club had loaded springs on it that are triggered by the collision, or something like that (ie unless the ball can draw on some energy source other than the kinetic energy of the club).
November 24th, 2006 at 9:25 pm
How many 3g meteors cross Earth´s atmosphere every day? I don´t think that ball will add a lot of danger.
November 25th, 2006 at 2:18 am
I thought that the US (which is where most of the idiots who would want to do it are from) already banned space billboards.
Not that it would affect other countries, but then again, what goes up must come down, or is it what goes up must be shot down, yeah, it’s the second one.
November 25th, 2006 at 2:47 am
Paul said “I believe a contract is already in place to put a Nike “swoosh†on the face of the moon.”
Many, many years ago I read a short sf story (I think it was by Clarke but it could have been Asimov) that ended with the logo of a well known soft drink company being projected onto the surface of the moon & being visible to the naked eye from Earth.
Back then, when admitting to reading science fiction stories, I used to get comments along the lines of “What are you reading that rubbish for?” Many of the ideas propounded in those stories are now science fact! I’ve also recently been told that many of the stories WERE rubbish from a literary point of view but to me that’s not the point, as it was the ideas that were important.
Anyway, the point here is that space advertising was proposed at least 40 years ago.
November 25th, 2006 at 4:12 am
Yeah. It seems someone comes up with the idea of orbiting billboards every few years.
November 25th, 2006 at 4:57 am
Big banners in space? Cool down the planet as a side effect?
As to orbiting large amounts of resources, there is a proposal to build an accelerator ring ( 2 miles in diameter) mass driver to launch 10 kg payloads to orbit. The US milatary is considering funding it. Wonder why?
GAry 7
November 25th, 2006 at 5:08 am
Maybe you were thinking of “The Man Who Sold the Moon” by Robert A. Heinlein. D.D. Harriman blackmailed a soft drink CEO into bankrolling his trip to the Moon by walking into his office with a button on his lapel with the logo of another soft drink (6+). The point was that the button, as seen from the executive’s desk was the same size as the Moon from Earth. Although 6+ was readable from that distance, the rival’s logo would not be.
November 25th, 2006 at 5:26 am
I’d rather cool down the planet by not emitting so much CO2 but if we have to keep emitting a lot of it I’d rather just have a sunshade at Sun-Earth L1 (probably a little bit closer to sun actually and let the light pressure provide some added support) that doesn’t display ads (and considering the danger of looking directly at the sun without a solar filter you probably don’t want people trying to make out what it says).
November 25th, 2006 at 9:09 am
I think bassmanpete might be thinking of the lunar surface sodium flare experiment in “Venture to the Moon” – an Arthur C Clarke story sequence written in 1957 and now available as part of “The Other Side of the Sky” anthology.
November 25th, 2006 at 7:12 pm
In Mike Jittlov’s brilliant film “The Wizard of Speed & Time” (hard to find but well worth it) he points a powerful laser beam at the moon to write an advert for his movie. I thought that was a great idea when I first saw it, but now when I realize it might not be long before something like that is actually done…
There was another SF short story I read a long time ago (can’t remember who wrote it) about a worldwide panic when scientists start noticing that certain stars were moving in unpredictable directions. Eventually fter a day or two they all coalesced into the Coca-Cola logo (it’s always them, isn’t it?), and the stunt turned out to be some kind of trick with mirrors. Some trick!
November 26th, 2006 at 12:14 am
The ball is so light because yes, less-dense objects are slowed faster by atmospheric drag, so an object with less density than the station will fall harmlessly away from it. There’s a big brouhaha going on in that once the new station coolant system is up and running they want to take part of the old one and toss it overboard. The russians did stuff like this all the time back when they had their own station. But the problem is, the coolant pump or whatever has a greater average density than the station, so technically the station would drop faster than the pump due to atmospheric drag, and the pump has a chance of hitting the station. That’d be no good.
As for the F=ma stuff, you’re right that if they hit the ball with the same force then a more massive ball would just move slower and therefore impart the same amount of force (damage) if it hits something else. Except that… the station (and the golf ball) are already moving pretty fast. So imagine if it hits a satellite head on, or even slams into the side of it. Though a 45 gram ball would be going slower by that little bit that the golf club affected it, the impact velocity would still be almost as great as that of the 3 gram ball. But the 3 gram ball would have a lot less force due to it’s lower mass. Though, if that happened, that satellite’s probably not going to be able to tell the difference anyway. It’s like: would you rather be hit by a 79 ton train or an 80 ton train?
November 26th, 2006 at 4:56 am
‘Bassmanpete’ That’d be “Buy Jupiter” by Isaac Asimov -the title story of the eponymous anthology. Publishers = Panther SF, 1975.
(Pages 147-151.)
Alien* – races are fighting for market share -Earth sells the rights to use Jupiter as an interstellar billboard to the hyper-advanced Mizzarett* species
…but with a punchline that we’ve outwitted them because they failed to take up – and their rival Lamberj species will now be desperate to pay for advertising rights over Saturn with its rings!
*Very alien these (definitely the Mizarett & by implication, also theLamberj) occupies the coronal haloes of O-type stars in a brilliant throw-away line at the start.
Who’d have thought at the height of the Cold War that it would be the _Russian’s_ desperately trying to make money by stupid stunts in space and the Americans criticising them for their cash over all else ideology!
Oh & ‘Lab Lemming’ a better option for the ISS I’d suggest – fit it with rocket boosters and transform it from a station to a spaceship .. We could have a manned spaceship ready to head to Mars there that just needs a propulsion system!
November 26th, 2006 at 5:24 am
BTW. BA what did you think of Al Shepherd’s lunar golfball stunt?
Was that any better?
Personally, I don’t know what the big deal is with golf -now if itwas a lunar cricket match now _THAT_ would be worthwhile!
(BTW. Australia leading in the first Ashes test by a mere 355 runs having set the Poms a target of 648 runs and England down to its last few wickets witha day still to play!
Sorry, can’t help rubbing it in!)
November 26th, 2006 at 5:47 am
Buy Jupiter – I’d forgotten all about that story (and I’m a long-time Asimov fan too!)
Yes, no doubt we’ll be seeing the advertising men in space before too long, boldly billboarding where no billboarder has billboarded before (or something along those lines).
To paraphrase Ogden Nash (who in turn paraphrased some other obscure poet):
I still can’t see as I gaze afar,
A billboard lovely as a star.
Indeed now that the billboards reign
I’ll never see a star again!
(© 2006 Elwood Herring)
November 26th, 2006 at 5:58 am
D’oh! Mea culpa: I should’ve read the links posted from the top of this page first .. :
For the record & the lazy here’s the BA’s comments cut’n'pasted over. (Hope that’s okay netiquette ~wise)
The Bad Astronomer Says: 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.
——————————-
My response to that? ..Well Shepherd’s stunt still strikes me as being almost as unnecessary and has a not inconsiderable element of needless risk* plus I think they did sorta work out in advance what direction they were hitting the golf ball and they’ seem to have worked out that it will lose enegy and reenter the atmosphere burning up later
.. Still I see your point(s)..
* Eg. what if it had somehow richotted back on him or skewed off and hit the LEM or the other astronaut? What if he’d fallen over trying it and cracked his visor with his club? etc..)
What we really need is a proper lunar sports facility (pref. a cricket oval but more likely a soccer [football] stadium ..) or same in Low Earth orbit or space generally specially constructed to allow this sort of low-grav fun in safe(r) confines.
BTW. How do we know that the suggestion someone made didn’t actually happen here – that the golf shot was faked and we were only told that it happened in reality rather than sim /CGI??? If everyone is sworn to secrecy and the money was paid for, well not exactly nothing but something a lot safer than the alternative, could the stunt all be a white lie?
Finally, one good reason all space exploration & sports fans should seek a Lunar cricket match – it’ll needs at least 24 people up there – 11 per team and (at least) two umpires!
November 26th, 2006 at 8:41 am
For *that* golf shot, I’m surprised that it isn’t available on YouTube yet. Hasn’t anybody got any friends or relations in NASA, or the Russian Space Academy or even the Stupid Golf Company, that must have comfirmatory visual evidence?
I’m waiting.
Ivan. (Go cricket – 1 down, 4 to go),(I couldn’t resist either).
November 28th, 2006 at 1:57 am
The delta V imparted to the ball would not be sufficient to change the orbit that much. It already has a velocity of about 7.5 kps, so if it was hit off the back of the station (retrograde) then it would just have a slightly more eliptical orbit, eventually meeting the station again after several orbits. It wouldnt hit any other satellites unless they were in almost the same orbit. For the ball to re-enter, I believe that it would have to be hit with enough force to change its velocity by about 500-1000m/s. Thats one hell of a drive. I may be wrong though, Ive crashed my fair share of spacecraft in the Orbiter simulator…
November 29th, 2006 at 1:41 pm
I think you are right, escept that drag is going to affect the ball’s orbit, and if it has low mass and high cross section, drag will work better than high mass low cross section. Or more accurately, the same cross-section with a lower mass.
I think they are counting on drag causing enough delta-V that the ball never intersects the ISS again. Plus the ISS can maneuver/reboost. (Don’t know if it did.)
I just hope it’s gone by Dec 7 (when the Shuttle goes up again).
November 30th, 2006 at 11:55 am
Elwood Herring Said:
“There was another SF short story I read a long time ago (can’t remember who wrote it) about a worldwide panic when scientists start noticing that certain stars were moving in unpredictable directions. Eventually fter a day or two they all coalesced into the Coca-Cola logo (it’s always them, isn’t it?), and the stunt turned out to be some kind of trick with mirrors. Some trick! ”
I was thinking of this same story, too. But for some reason, I thought the product they were hawking turned out to be laundry soap.
November 30th, 2006 at 2:08 pm
The story is “Pi in the Sky” by Fredric Brown, one of my all-time favorite authors.
He wrote the short story “Arena” which has been made into a zillion science fiction shows (including an original Trek). “What Mad Universe” is a fun book, and his hard-bitten 1940s detective novels are a lot of fun.