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

[brandbll]

ahh but i love to passionately croak so much. It's almost intoxicating. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="3">You wanna talk some jive? I'll talk some jive. I'll talk some jive like you've never heard!</font></p> </div>

 

[dragon04]

I don't see a problem here as long as he replaces his divot. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[brandbll]

It's a he, and no i didn't realize that. I don't think i'm really doing anything wrong anyways. But then again, that's only what i THINK, i'm usually wrong 9 out of 10 times so who knows. Alright, well im gonna go, ill talk to you all later. Until then can someone answer my question as to whether or not the bullet would shoot at full speed? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="3">You wanna talk some jive? I'll talk some jive. I'll talk some jive like you've never heard!</font></p> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>So why did they not get people to the Moon? for the same reason that the US abandoned Apollo - politics. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />That and a booster that was a dud. Too many engines on the first stage made for an overly complex stage that was ripe for failure. <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>

 

[JonClarke]

It certainly was a complex approach, but I don't think there are any fundamental reasons why the N-1 could not have been made to work, given a less pressured schedule and more development. After all, the R-7 had 20 main engines and 16 verniers<br /><br />Some more explanation of the politics comment. The USSR leadership did not next the Kennedy lunar mission seriously until 1964 and effective start of their lunar program did not happen until 1965. So they began 4 years behind the US. As I recall the N-1 was abandoned in 1972, after it's final test flight, which, although unsuccessful, did achieve more than the early ones. Had this not been abandoned I suspect that a lunar flight might have been feasible in 74 or 75, ~10 years after the start of development. <br /><br />So I think there is a chance that, had the USSR decided to start a lunar program in 1960, they may well have had someone on the moon by 1970, or been very close to it.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>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</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[tap_sa]

<font color="yellow">"the R-7 had 20 main engines"</font><br /><br />20 combustion chambers but only five turbopumps which each fed four chambers. The group of four chambers plus pump is considered one engine. The 30 NK-15 engines in N-1 first stage each had own turbopump.

 

[JonClarke]

Agreed, but the complexity does not neccessaily mean it was not impossible. Sadly we will never know, as it is not an approach that people are likely to try again.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>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</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[tap_sa]

True, but complexity adds risk of failure. Pumps with moving parts turbomachinery were quite failure prone those days. Then again IIRC it was the complex plumbing that failed at least on some flight.<br /><br />N-1 might have been stellar success if Russian engineers had similar quality of materials as their American counterparts. The communist system guaranteed that factories produced steel etc with wanting quality. It was only the Russian engineering ingenuity that found clever ways around that, but I guess vehicle as big as N-1 was too unforgiving towards the low quality materials.

 

[JonClarke]

Indeed. Mind you I have often wondered how much of the supposed "inferior Russian materials" line was due to a mix of cold war snobbery and a NIH attitude to a different design philosophy.<br /><br />Still, an N1 launch must have been an awesome sight!<br /><br />Jon <br /><br />Added in edit: Another imponderable is what would have happened had Korolov not died at a tragically early age. Would he have been able to steer the N-1 past its development phase with fewer problems than was the historic case? Or would the the management have been largely out of his hands? Or were the technical challenges of the multiple engine approach so great that the problems would have happened regardless? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>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</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[tap_sa]

<rant><br /><br />Back 60s it took ten years because they actually pushed the envelope. Now it takes ten years because that's the maximum time the contractors can milk NASA while doing jack without raising suspicions (because these things <i>used</i> to take ten years).<br /><br /></rant /><br /><br />Sorry for the rant, it just bugs me to see that all the modern CAD/CAM stuff can't seem to hasten the speed of space exploration.

 

[JonClarke]

My understanding is that aspects of the engine design are Russian, while 100% US construction.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>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</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Another imponderable is what would have happened had Korolov not died at a tragically early age.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />It is something to think about, isn't it? it can be argued that the Soviet failure to reach the Moon was Stalin's fault; it was Stalin's paranoia that sent Korolev (and many other brilliant engineers) to the gulags. Korolev and a handful of others were saved when someone in power got them transferred from their virtual death sentences into actual engineering work (still technically gulag work, though). Korolev never fully recovered from that, and doubtless others were not as lucky as him. Stalin's insanity may have cost the Soviets a tremendous amount of engineering expertise, putting their efforts back years.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p> Or would the the management have been largely out of his hands?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Well, one major problem was the constant fighting between Korolev's N1 program and Chelomei's UR-500 program. (UR-500 had a lot of early growing pains, just as N1 did, but it's a successful booster now: the modern member of the UR-500 program is Proton.) As the political climate shifted in Moscow, either Korolev or Chelomei would be favored, and as a consequence, neither of them really had time and resources long enough to do a proper job. With the constant worry of another shift, they had to produce quickly, so that doubled the already excessive schedule pressure. It had to have been a very stressful job. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"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."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

I would also have to blame Khrushchev's priorities. He demanded a 3 person flight in a 1 person capsule. All he wanted was propaganda. You will note the date previously listed as when the Soviet lunar program was started was the year after Khrushchev was removed from power. <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>

 

[CalliArcale]

You can probably blame every Soviet premier to some extent, although generally for messing around with the space program in different ways. It was a political football.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"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."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[webtaz99]

Although I despise golf myself, it is a favorite of all the movers and shakers, so this "golf stunt" is a great thing for the "space economy". And if something bad happens, we can blame it on <b>GOLF<b>! <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /></b></b> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[Leovinus]

The golf shot is a stupid idea. On the moon -- ok. In orbit -- stupid. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[tap_sa]

Is this a <b>G</b>olf thread?

 

[JonClarke]

"You can probably blame every Soviet premier to some extent, although generally for messing around with the space program in different ways. It was a political football. "<br /><br />Not a problem restricted to the USSR!<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>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</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[drwayne]

On the moon, you are pretty darn sure that you will never see that golf ball again. In orbit - there are always possibilities you might "run into it" again. (Remote)<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[drwayne]

That's a *lot* bigger than the probability one would run into it on the moon!<br /><br />(Of course, there is my terrible aim - I might hit it, have it hit a rock, bounce back, and hit me in the faceplate - losing oxygen and leading to complete brain death - which would be OK, no one would notice...) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[drwayne]

On the MOON!<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[askold]

I'm kind of concerned about a guy swinging a club while weight less, clinging to the ISS. On the moon, the astronaut was firmly (1/6 gravity firmly) planted on the moon. <br /><br />At least Shepard wasn't standing on the LEM when he hit the golf ball!

 

[brandbll]

If the Russian guy gets to hit a golf ball shouldn't the american guy hit a baseball!? I mean come on, its just gotta happen. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="3">You wanna talk some jive? I'll talk some jive. I'll talk some jive like you've never heard!</font></p> </div>

 

[drwayne]

Beachball!!!<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I'm kind of concerned about a guy swinging a club while weight less, clinging to the ISS. On the moon, the astronaut was firmly (1/6 gravity firmly) planted on the moon.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />The golf ball manufacturer funding the exercise has constructed a special foot restraint specifically for this. There shouldn't be any risk of the cosmonaut sending himself hurtling into space in accordance with Newton's Laws. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"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."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>