Is the "golf shot" publicity stunt off the ISS a good idea?

askold · Apr 13, 2006

"NASA officials met on Tuesday to review the safety of the stunt, which already has been approved by the Russian space agency. NASA is expected to make a decision at a later date. ..... NASA officials want to make sure a bad slice or hook won't send the golf ball careening into the spacecraft, or that a bad backswing or follow-through won't cause Vinogradov to strike the station with his six-iron." We spend a year cautiously glueing foam on the tank and fiddling with ECO sensors , then a guy takes a golf swing off the station? This is insane.

rybanis · Apr 13, 2006

"...its a long par 5 from low earth orbit..." "...yeah Jim, this hole has been brutal after the redesign of the course..." <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

john_316 · Apr 13, 2006

What would really be funny is if the shot were to knock out another russian satellite...... Oooops!!!! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

willpittenger · Apr 13, 2006

The golf ball's new orbit will intersect that of the station. **That** sounds dangerous. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

steampower · Apr 13, 2006

it sounds about a dangerous as putting on a hat, even with the best technology (starwars SDI), hitting another satelite is tricky, in a spacesuit the guys gonna putt it more than hit a perfect 1200ft drive, and if throwing an old spacesuit with a radio in it overboard is OK when NASA fancy a bit of publicity then whats wrong with a golfball when the Russians do?, anyway, it`s not as though theres anything American and manned up there to hit LOL, the rest the Russians can work out with their insurers. steampower.

tap_sa · Apr 13, 2006

"The golf ball's new orbit will intersect that of the station." It's a golf ball and it wouldn't hit the station faster than a guy in a bulky spacesuit can swing it away with one arm only. BTW why does NASA make decisions what the Russians can or can't do on International Space Station? If the Russian want to play golf on their end of the station then go ahead. With all due respect NASA should concentrate it's efforts to keep it's own current and future space programs back on track rather than trying to sit on the brakes for others.

lbiderman · Apr 13, 2006

Yes, you are right, the calculations showed that the ball would decay and not be on the same orbit as the Station. I don´t think he would hurt himself if he is pretty well strapped, but perhaps he could hit the Station with the iron. THAT sounds dangerous

CalliArcale · Apr 13, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />BTW why does NASA make decisions what the Russians can or can't do on International Space Station?<hr /></blockquote> Because it's the International Space Station, not the Russian Space Station. There's US hardware up there too, and quite a bit of it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff." -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

ve7rkt · Apr 13, 2006

If it's okay to intentionally create debris in LEO now, I want to go up there and throw a pocket full of change. Broken satellites, expended boosters, and a few thousand droplets of frozen coolant, isn't there enough garbage up there already? This golf company is not making me proud to be Canadian.

webtaz99 · Apr 13, 2006

The ball won't stay up there forever. <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

earth_bound_misfit · Apr 13, 2006

I can only imagine how differcult it would be to "tee off" in a space suit! I have enough trouble getting the ball and club to connect in shorts and t-shirt <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ----------------------------------------------------------------- Wanna see this site looking like the old SDC uplink?Go here to see how: SDC Eye saver </div>

askold · Apr 13, 2006

These stunts can't be good PR for the American taxpayer's hearts and minds and wallets. You hear we have to continue spending billions on the shuttle to finish the space station - so that Russians can ferry rich tourists there and perform foolish stunts? We can build how many levees in New Orleans instead of completing the orbitting joke? .....

erioladastra · Apr 13, 2006

"BTW why does NASA make decisions what the Russians can or can't do on International Space Station? If the Russian want to play golf on their end of the station then go ahead. With all due respect NASA should concentrate it's efforts to keep it's own current and future space programs back on track rather than trying to sit on the brakes for others. " Per agreement, NASA is the overall integrator of the station and is ultimately responsible for safety. In the end, Russia will do whatever Russia wants to do.

erioladastra · Apr 13, 2006

"I'd be more concerned about him getting hurt. " And of course, no golfers ever cause divots!

ve7rkt · Apr 13, 2006

The ball won't stay up there forever. So, it's okay to place civil, military and commercial satellites below the ISS at risk for three to four years. Gotcha. I know it's a small risk. But it is a non-zero risk. I know that spaceflight is risky. But this is a perfectly avoidable risk. I know that sometimes benefits are worth risk. But I don't think a 30 second TV spot is worth it.

lampblack · Apr 13, 2006

So, it's okay to place civil, military and commercial satellites below the ISS at risk for three to four years. Gotcha. I may be wrong about this -- but I don't believe there are any satellites below the ISS. It's more or less skimming along the extreme upper reaches of the atmosphere. Still... the golf shot is a goofy idea. Heck, it even took Alan Shepherd a couple of tries to get it right. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Just tell the truth and let the chips fall... </div>

brandbll · Apr 13, 2006

Hey, if you surrounded the main parts that function with a gun with like a small balloon type thing that would trap the oxygen inside, and put like a thin material on the end of the barrell. Would the gun shoot? If so , what would happen? And if all this is possible, how long until someone tries it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> You wanna talk some jive? I'll talk some jive. I'll talk some jive like you've never heard! </div>

brandbll · Apr 13, 2006

So what would happen? The bullet would shoot out like normal? Or would the person shooting the gun get shot back? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> You wanna talk some jive? I'll talk some jive. I'll talk some jive like you've never heard! </div>

josh_simonson · Apr 14, 2006

Hmm. I can pictures shooting down into the atmosphere and seeing the bullets burn up at night. That'd be pretty sweet actually, now I just need 20 million... I'd reccomend a revolver so there isn't brass poinging around into the solar panels ect. No way the pressure will escape out the headspace before the bullets well on it's way. I could see the bullets popping out of their cases due to the internal pressure of the air inside them perhaps, that'd be a problem.

shoogerbrugge · Apr 14, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />You hear we have to continue spending billions on the shuttle to finish the space station - so that Russians can ferry rich tourists there and perform foolish stunts? <hr /></blockquote> That is the wrong reasoning. By shooting golf balls and ferrying rich paying costumers to the ISS more money is invested in the total space program, making soonner completition more feasable.

ve7rkt · Apr 14, 2006

That is the wrong reasoning. By shooting golf balls and ferrying rich paying costumers to the ISS more money is invested in the total space program, making soonner completition more feasable. Yes, people here know that, but the public at large is likely to take the "money spent for foolish stunts" point of view. <img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" />

brandbll · Apr 14, 2006

So would the bullet from the gun travel at it's normal speed, or slower? And screw the Russians. They're always diddly daddling around notting getting stuff done. Why do you think they never made it to the moon. I wouldn't be surprised if that Russian Cosmonaught on the ISS is drunk and passed out right now. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> You wanna talk some jive? I'll talk some jive. I'll talk some jive like you've never heard! </div>

erioladastra · Apr 14, 2006

"By shooting golf balls and ferrying rich paying costumers to the ISS more money is invested in the total space program, making soonner completition more feasable. " Not sure I see your reasoning. The Russian space program barely gets enough money from such things to keep afloat and the NASA side gets nothing (nor could they take any money). It might (or might not) garner public support but that is about it. In fact, if you add up all the NASA folks that had to spend many, many hours worrying about it you likely lost money from the US side!

JonClarke · Apr 14, 2006

"And screw the Russians. They're always diddly daddling around notting getting stuff done. Why do you think they never made it to the moon. I wouldn't be surprised if that Russian Cosmonaught on the ISS is drunk and passed out right now." I strongly advise you read a little more about what the Russians have achieved in space before you write such nonsense in future. I suggest to start by reading about about their unmanned Luna program of the 60's and 70's, the Venera missions of the 60's to 80's, and the VeGa probes to Halleys comet. Look up their many military and civil applications satellites. These cover just about every conceivable application. In the manned spaceflight I suggest you read up on Sayluts 6 and 7 and Mir. These propvided almost all the long duration human spaceflight experience until the ISS, established continuous human presence in space, and pioneered a vast range of key technologies including orbital assembly. Don't forget that the US is dependent on those same "diddly daddling around" Russians for reliable, on schedule human space flight. Don't forget that the Delta IVs and Atlas Vs fly using Russian technology. Those "cosmonaughts" you slander as being drunk include almost all of the world's most experienced spacefarers. Theyb deserve your wholehearted respect. So why did they not get people to the Moon? for the same reason that the US abandoned Apollo - politics. Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

brandbll · Apr 14, 2006

That's what i'm saying Jon Clarke. IF they weren't such big drunk gadflies think of how much mroe they could have achieved. It's unimaginable. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> You wanna talk some jive? I'll talk some jive. I'll talk some jive like you've never heard! </div>

Is the "golf shot" publicity stunt off the ISS a good idea?

askold

Guest

rybanis

Guest

john_316

Guest

willpittenger

Guest

steampower

Guest

tap_sa

Guest

lbiderman

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

ve7rkt

Guest

webtaz99

Guest

earth_bound_misfit

Guest

askold

Guest

erioladastra

Guest

erioladastra

Guest

ve7rkt

Guest

lampblack

Guest

brandbll

Guest

brandbll

Guest

josh_simonson

Guest

shoogerbrugge

Guest

ve7rkt

Guest

brandbll

Guest

erioladastra

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

brandbll

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page