Slashdot Mirror


NASA To Send Luke's Lightsaber Into Space

Verunks writes "In honor of the 30th anniversary of Star Wars, NASA will launch Luke Skywalker's original Jedi lightsaber into space along with the crew of the space shuttle Discovery. The launch is slated for October."

290 comments

  1. Fired by Cassius+Corodes · · Score: 2, Funny

    Fired... out of a cannon... into the sun.

    --
    Control is an illusion, order our comforting lie. From chaos, through chaos, into chaos we fly
    1. Re:Fired by the_tsi · · Score: 1

      You gotta do what you gotta do.

    2. Re:Fired by anarkavre · · Score: 1

      Maybe it will end up in a galaxy far, far away.

      --
      "Without curiosity and knowledge, the mind is a vast void. Without the mind, curiosity and knowledge are nonexistent."
    3. Re:Fired by sircastor · · Score: 5, Funny

      the whole series is really about him but noooo.... NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
    4. Re:Fired by Damastus+the+WizLiz · · Score: 1

      Too bad there is no way to make that sound as whiny in text as it did in the movie.

      --
      I often have trouble remembering which way is out of bed in the morning.
    5. Re:Fired by Traa · · Score: 2, Funny

      So Darth Vader gets screwed again. Lets face it, the whole series is really about him but noooo, his glory robbing little snot faced kid has got to prance around and steal his thunder. Typical younger generation...

      Read his blog: http://darthside.blogspot.com/

      Amazing story.
    6. Re:Fired by PhoenixOr · · Score: 1

      Sure there is, this is the web. Just use tags and define them in your DOM.

    7. Re:Fired by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, Luke can just do that thing with his hand to bring it back.

    8. Re:Fired by Simian+Road · · Score: 2, Funny

      Do not want!!!!!

      (If you get that, I'll give you a cookie)

    9. Re:Fired by Anaerin · · Score: 1

      Yay for poorly translated Chinese subtitles! The Backstroke of the west!

      Now, where's my cookie?

  2. Why not George Lucas? by writertype · · Score: 4, Funny

    Basically, this is the equivalent of "first post", for this topic, at least.

    1. Re:Why not George Lucas? by ilovegeorgebush · · Score: 1

      While you're there, can you send Ben Affleck with them too. It'd be great if you could 'accidentally' jettison him into the sun; we'd all appreciate it.

    2. Re:Why not George Lucas? by aplusjimages · · Score: 1

      I was thinking we could send the first three movies and pretend they never happened.

      --
      Can I bum a sig?
    3. Re:Why not George Lucas? by egyptiankarim · · Score: 1

      Hey, man. Affleck was the bomb in Phantoms!

      --
      Eek!
    4. Re:Why not George Lucas? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oooooooOOOOH SNAP! It's ON!

      ...wait, as in I II and III, or the first 3 released?...

      CHOOSE WISELY!

    5. Re:Why not George Lucas? by aplusjimages · · Score: 1

      I meant the ones from the 1970's. Why would I mean episode I, II, and III? Hayden Christensen was great and should have won an award for his role as Lord Vader. Annnd scene.

      --
      Can I bum a sig?
    6. Re:Why not George Lucas? by everphilski · · Score: 2, Funny

      Word, bitch, Phantoms like a mallfucker!

    7. Re:Why not George Lucas? by morcego · · Score: 1

      I actually enjoyed his acting and roles in both "Dogma" and "Good Will Hunting". Specially the former.

      --
      morcego
    8. Re:Why not George Lucas? by garnetlion · · Score: 1

      I like the way you think.

  3. Glad to see... by speaker+of+the+truth · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Glad to see NASA focusing on the important stuff when it comes to space.

    --
    Using openSUSE instead of Windows since 9th of October, 2007 and liking it.
    1. Re:Glad to see... by QuantumG · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Rutan recently said, "Admitting that the shuttle was wrong is an honest thing, but there is not the courage to actually try something we don't know will work. It means that we are absolutely, positively guaranteed to not solve the problem" of the dangers and expense of spaceflight.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    2. Re:Glad to see... by Jugalator · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you're sending up space shuttle Discovery, I doubt there's a lot of wasted costs on putting a lightsabre in there. :-p

      You could look at it in another way too -- without publicity for the masses (and not just space geeks), theye will lose interest in it. This seems like a very effort free way of raising publicity, and quite different on truly having their wrong focus by launching satellites for fun.

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    3. Re:Glad to see... by opec · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you're sending up space shuttle Discovery, I doubt there's a lot of wasted costs on putting a lightsabre in there. :-p

      The average cost per pound to send to Low Earth Orbit is $3632 - $4587. [1]

      [1] Source: http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=301

    4. Re:Glad to see... by QuantumG · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So what you're saying is that this is really cheap advertising.

      Personally, I think NASA could more easily improve their image by putting a few cameras on the shuttle.. and showing us what the astronauts are actually doing when they're going through the procedures to return to earth, say, instead of showing us shot after shot of the landing strip, 4 hours before the shuttle is even scheduled to enter the atmosphere.

      Maybe put together some CG of the shuttle doing what it does when the astronauts press the buttons on the flight deck. Show us that when they're going through the procedures.. instead of the same shot of the earth from the ISS for 40 minutes.

      Ya know, actually engage the people on the ground in the process.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    5. Re:Glad to see... by timmarhy · · Score: 0

      How was the shuttle "wrong"? and i don't know about you, but there's no way i'd go into space not knowing if shit was going to work or not.

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    6. Re:Glad to see... by fr4nk · · Score: 5, Informative

      Personally, I think NASA could more easily improve their image by putting a few cameras on the shuttle.. and showing us what the astronauts are actually doing when they're going through the procedures to return to earth, say, instead of showing us shot after shot of the landing strip, 4 hours before the shuttle is even scheduled to enter the atmosphere. You should have a look at NASA TV during Shuttle missions.
    7. Re:Glad to see... by BuR4N · · Score: 1

      I would say that its a bigger issue that they still send upp the shuttle than the lightsaber in question.

      --
      http://www.intellipool.se/ - Intellipool Network Monitor
    8. Re:Glad to see... by kill.yr.transistors · · Score: 0

      Jesus, no kidding. I wouldn't think this is exactly the kind of publicity NASA needs. Replacing moon rocks with light sabers? That's sacreligious.

    9. Re:Glad to see... by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      That's what I'm talking about (what else would I be talking about).

      Last shuttle mission, coming down, 3 hours of looking at the runway.. or looking at the guys in the control center looking at the runway.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    10. Re:Glad to see... by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      If he needs to tell you then you won't understand. Go read about the failure that is the shuttle program.

      They tried to make a vehicle that would be everything to everyone. They got a vehicle that does just that.. poorly.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    11. Re:Glad to see... by bytesex · · Score: 1

      The US admin will never go for it; another camera that can be accidentally left on when they're doing supersecret stuff up there.

      --
      Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
    12. Re:Glad to see... by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      Uhhh, by "he" I was referring to Burt Rutan.. the guy I quoted.

      And as for me, personally, not wanting to educate you on the inadequacy of the shuttle program, I just couldn't be fucked ok?

      I don't wanna argue with you about it.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    13. Re:Glad to see... by timmarhy · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      ok, the post certainly looked like you were referring to your own post when you said "he" not he as in the person you quoted

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    14. Re:Glad to see... by cp.tar · · Score: 5, Funny

      Jesus, no kidding. I wouldn't think this is exactly the kind of publicity NASA needs. Replacing moon rocks with light sabers? That's sacreligious.

      Just wait. Soon enough, they'll be modifying the Moon to look like the Death Star.

      At least they'll want us to believe they're only modifying it to look like the Death Star, while actual"#$//" NO CARRIER.

      --
      Ignore this signature. By order.
    15. Re:Glad to see... by jjig · · Score: 1

      I agree, nothing else deserves to go into space more than a 30 year old movie prop.

    16. Re:Glad to see... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah... Joe sixpack isn't interested in all that high-falutin sciency shit! He is more interested in the light sabre.

    17. Re:Glad to see... by edmicman · · Score: 1

      Anything specific, or should I just Google "shuttle program failures" and take a crap shoot? Of course, I could probably get just as many results if I Googled "shuttle program successes". So who's right? There's that thing about opinions and assholes and everyone having one...

    18. Re:Glad to see... by click2005 · · Score: 1

      Dont forget to add the cost of the lightsabre itself. It sold on Ebay a while back for around $25,000.
      I'm assuming this is the same one.

      --
      I am a free slashdotter. I will not be modded, blogged, DRM'd, patented, podcasted or RFID'd. My life is my own.
    19. Re:Glad to see... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      One important reason for the lack of video during return preparations is that the Ku antenna has been stowed and that there is no downlink capacity for this kind of video. There's video available after landing, though, from tapes.

    20. Re:Glad to see... by QuantumG · · Score: 4, Informative

      Always start with wikipedia..

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Spac e_Shuttle_program

      The criticism of the shuttle program is extensive and uncontroversial. No-one in the industry, not even NASA, thinks the shuttle is anything but a huge balls up from beginning to end. The most flattering description of the shuttle program you can get from a space systems engineer is "it was a nice design before congress got to it."

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    21. Re:Glad to see... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      i don't know about you, but there's no way i'd go into space not knowing if shit was going to work or not.
      You don't have the right stuff. That's why you're a pencil necked dork who lives in your mom's basement.
    22. Re:Glad to see... by PJ1216 · · Score: 2, Funny

      That's no moon... that's a space station!

    23. Re:Glad to see... by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      You mean like advertising... but with truth?

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    24. Re:Glad to see... by falcon5768 · · Score: 1
      Thats because its next to impossible to transmit visuals for a good chunk of the landing, heck for a portion of the landing the shuttle cant transmit anything but some data, not even voice. Nothing NASA can do about it but if humans continue to destroy the upper atmosphere NASA wont have to worry about it for much longer.

      And even for what they can transmit, do you think they would want to? God forbid something else happened would you WANT to see people dying on their way in?

      --

      "Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."

    25. Re:Glad to see... by FatAlb3rt · · Score: 1

      No one disputes that, but it's still the best manned vehicle. Kinda like telling your buddy that his Porsche ain't shit because it's not a Ferrari...as you crawl back into your Chevette.

    26. Re:Glad to see... by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 1

      To quote Rutan about the space shuttle, is like quoting Lee Iacocca about General Motors...

      Sure he has experience in the field, but you have to keep in mind he is trying to sell you his solution.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    27. Re:Glad to see... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah no doubt. Leave all the stupid stuff like light sabers behind and take me instead!

    28. Re:Glad to see... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe if you were going to take shots at the guy for saying you wouldn't understand, you should learn to use contractions like you're instead of your so that you can show you understand the English.

    29. Re:Glad to see... by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      I wonder how much that lightsaber weighs in relation to all my taxpayer money they've blown into space since the end of Apollo?

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    30. Re:Glad to see... by ZipprHead · · Score: 1

      Have you ever watched people push buttons while floating in air for 60 minutes?

      I bet it gets pretty boring.

    31. Re:Glad to see... by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      At least he's offering SOMETHING new. That beats the Hell out of NASA for the last 30 years. "Hey look, we added wheels to the Viking Lander!!" may excite *some* people, but it's pretty sad compared to what they did in the 60's (even taking into account the smaller budgets).

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    32. Re:Glad to see... by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      Gotta be more interesting than watching an empty runway.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    33. Re:Glad to see... by WRX+SKy · · Score: 1

      How much does a shuttle launch cost: $400-$500 million

      How much does a shuttle weigh: 165,000 lbs

      Which comes out to anywhere from $2,424.25 / lb to $3,030.30 / lb.. Assuming the light saber weighs one pound... and averaging the costs... sending the saber will cost $2,727.28.

    34. Re:Glad to see... by eam · · Score: 1

      They can use stock footage to show the sorts of things that the astronauts are doing when the shuttle isn't transmitting video. You just have to explain that the shuttle can't transmit, but here is video recorded during the last landing to give you an idea of what the astronauts are doing. Slap the recorded date at the bottom of the screen and show something other than an empty landing strip.

    35. Re:Glad to see... by Strawser · · Score: 1

      Think about how much that light sabre will be worth when it gets back. Starwars fans pay pretty good bucks for props, and space junkies pay enormous sums for space artifacts. Once Luke's original trusty lightsabre is also a space artifact, it'll be damned near priceless.

      --
      The louder he talked of his honour, the faster we counted our spoons. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
    36. Re:Glad to see... by GeckoX · · Score: 1

      Or you could just try yourself and see what comes up.

      Here, I did it for you. Results for:

      shuttle program failures : 1 - 10 of about 1,930,000
      shuttle program successes : 1 - 10 of about 1,780,000

      Yes, they are close, but 2 points: There are certainly more hits on failure, and if you read through the matches returned it becomes very apparent that the failure results in bulk reflect the failure of the entire program, whereas the success results are minor achievements...shuttle landed successfully, robot worked successfully...and worse, even on the first page of results for successes, there are articles about the shuttle program being doomed etc.

      In other words, the preponderance of available evidence suggests that the shuttle program is not seen as a glowing success by any stretch of the imagination.

      Now you're ready to go and find some of the facts involved. And the linked wiki article is a very good place to start.

      --
      No Comment.
    37. Re:Glad to see... by mikael · · Score: 1

      Sad but true - people will pay more to be entertained than to be educated... you can get footballers or singers earning a salary of millions per year, but try finding a professor who can do the same.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    38. Re:Glad to see... by GeckoX · · Score: 2, Informative

      Um, I was watching Columbia when it burned up, as was just about everyone else in school at the time in North America. Just saying...

      --
      No Comment.
    39. Re:Glad to see... by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 2, Funny

      Always start with wikipedia..
      ...but please, never stop there.
      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    40. Re:Glad to see... by everphilski · · Score: 1

      ... said the man who sold his company to Northrop Grumman, a 'Dinosaur' Aerospace firm.

    41. Re:Glad to see... by ps236 · · Score: 1

      But... OTOH

      A successful mission WOULD be a launch, do something, land. To most people this won't be newsworthy, and it looks like 'minor achievements' - but that's exactly what the shuttle was designed to do. I'm not sure what other 'successes' the shuttle could possibly have.

      Really, it comes down to what you WANTED to achieve. Yes, there were a couple of tragic shuttle accidents, but how many successful missions were there? Yes, the missions have cost billions, but how much would the same missions in some other transport have cost?

      Space travel isn't going to be safe, OR cheap with our current level of technology. The shuttle was designed 30 years ago. Yes, it could do with being redesigned, and from some points of view it could be called a failure, but IMV it expanded our knowledge of space transport/exploration far beyond what could have been achieved with other equipment of the time - eg having a "fully controlled" re-entry and landing is far beyond what was achieved previously, and what will be possible with the next generation 'Orion' craft. Without the shuttle, we could have speculated that this was possible, but now we KNOW it is.

      Given NASA's 'new vision' (Orion) seems to be to have a modified Saturn launch vehicle with modified Apollo modules on it, that seems like a big step *backwards* in 'experimentation' - the lawyers have won!

      But, back to the original article - I can't see the point, they're flying it to the ISS *and back* (they're not 'launching it into space' as such, just carrying it there and back on the shuttle). Why? It's purely a publicity stunt. I suppose 'why not?' is just as good a question...

    42. Re:Glad to see... by ZeroExistenZ · · Score: 1
      There has been a guy named Graham W. Birdsall, who pointed his satelite dish to the shuttle, picking up unencrypted signals and taping it all and made a documentary of the footage: Secret NASA Transmissions. The whole conspiracy-nuts around it make it seem uninteresting, but it really is worth the time.

      I agree with you that the public isn't "let into the experience" enough to be able to enjoy it. Everytime I see a decent documentary about the universe, or past NASA deep-space exploration programs, the Mars Rovers' (which were very closely followed by slashdotters) or just am discussing the universe with people, these is this great sense of insignifance and awe about space and the universe. Seeing a shuttle lieft lift off and land *is* boring, it can't nearly satisfy my drive to discover and learn more about what the universe is all about. It's pretty anti-climaxive.

      Ya know, actually engage the people on the ground in the process.

      yea, but PLEASE! Nothing televoting based or big-brother styled :)

      --
      I think we can keep recursing like this until someone returns 1
    43. Re:Glad to see... by OldeTimeGeek · · Score: 1

      The most flattering description of the shuttle program you can get from a space systems engineer is "it was a nice design before congress got to it."

      What would have been better? Or, better yet, what would have been possible? Given the political climate at the time, it's amazing that anything got built at all.

      In the mid 70's, the American public wasn't terribly interested in funding anything even remotely related to space. What little interest had long since drained away after Apollo 13 (and would have probably been gone after Apollo 12 had the explosion not happened). The shuttle program was proposed to "keep the ball rolling". Yes, it was political and, no, it wasn't the best engineering solution, but what's worse, the best unfunded shuttle or the best funded one? The engineers can say all they want to about the solution, but they don't pay the bills. Congress does. If Congress hadn't agreed, there would have been no shuttle nor anything else. To quote The Right Stuff: No bucks, no Buck Rodgers.

    44. Re:Glad to see... by dwye · · Score: 1

      > How was the shuttle "wrong"?

      It was sold as a DC-3. It was designed to be a DC-2. Post-Proxmiring, what NASA got was a Curtiss Jenny with an enclosed cabin.

      > and i don't know about you, but there's no way i'd go
      > into space not knowing if shit was going to work or not.

      You are probably not a test pilot, are you?

      BTW, do you drive on highways? Fly commercially? They have disasters, too, so "knowing if shit was going to work or not" is not always enough.

    45. Re:Glad to see... by BobNET · · Score: 1

      Just wait. Soon enough, they'll be modifying the Moon to look like the Death Star.

      Too late!

    46. Re:Glad to see... by Suzuran · · Score: 1

      It is still the only heavy-return-from-orbit vehicle we have. This capability should not be forgotten. Once we abandon the shuttle for the CEV nobody will have this capability. It's one thing to get stuff into orbit, but another to manufacture things in orbit and send them down to Earth.

    47. Re:Glad to see... by GeckoX · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, never said a successful landing was a failure. We're talking about the entire platform as a whole. It has failed it's design specs. It can't be launched anywhere near as often as it was intended to be. It costs insanely more than it was ever supposed to. It's more dangerous and less useful than it was supposed to be. I think what most people see as the biggest failure is that all of these are well known issues, and have been for a very very long time now, but nothing has been done to change the state of things. No solutions for these well known problems. No where to go from here at this point. That, at least in my mind, is NASA's biggest failing with the platform. Any car manufacturer would have cut their losses as R&D and lessons learned when the problems were first recognized, and moved forward applying those lessons to a new, better, more viable solution.

      Unfortunately, NASA is funded by tax money...it's basically been a bottomless pit that simply could and would not be allowed to exist in such a fashion in any sort of commercial entity.

      There have been alternative ways to move forward for decades now...but they haven't. That is a huge failure. We KNOW we can do better...look at how much we achieved leading up to the shuttle program. It's time to move in a new direction, and has been for a very long time.

      Ford could have stuck to the pinto. Many trips in a pinto would have been successes. But it would be hard to say that Ford wouldn't have been a failure if they had done so. (Note: I say nothing about Ford's apparent state of success or failure at this point! Take the anecdote as is please and read nothing more in to it!)

      --
      No Comment.
    48. Re:Glad to see... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They used to do that until the cameras caught the strange flying ships around earth and people started asking questions

    49. Re:Glad to see... by dwye · · Score: 1

      > In the mid 70's, the American public wasn't terribly
      > interested in funding anything even remotely related to space.

      In the mid 70's, the American public wasn't terribly interested in funding anything not related to casual unprotected sex, and various addictive drugs. Getting more, not stopping it. An [fill in the blank] Liberation.

      Plus, NASA made Apollo 12 and 13 boring as Hell (until the unfortunate problem with the fuel cells), and 14 was a return to normalcy. Even though surveys said people liked the idea of a Space Program, they were not that interested in communicating that support to Congress.

      Finally, I think that the Vietnam War drained all the ambition from the US public. I would point out that no amputees were returned by the North Vietnamese, and no one in the media mentioned that as odd, just to start.

    50. Re:Glad to see... by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      In the quantities we were able to manufacture using the shuttle, one-off automatic satellites designed with re-entry in mind would be much less expensive. And as it turns out, for at least a subset of that group, diamagnetic levitation allows creation on the earth's surface, and will likely be quite a bit less expensive.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    51. Re:Glad to see... by saider · · Score: 1

      There are two spheres of thought when it comes to spaceflight.

      1) Spaceflight is dangerous and people will die. Systems that try to mitigate the risk and are tremendously expensive will fail. The expense associated with these systems reduces the number of designs that can be attempted. Instead we should try riskier and less expensive alternatives so that we have more competing designs on the table. Trying more of the riskier ideas will more quickly lead to a reliable, safe transport as the benefits and risks for each system can be ironed out.

      2) Spaceflight should spare no expense for safety. We are already spending a lot of money on this endeavor, I do not want to see it go up in smoke. Do it right the first time, cut costs after the system is well understood. Slow steady progress is better then going down a dead-end.

      I think the big argument is that the slow steady folks are perceived as eating up money that could be used by the Burt Rutans of the world. But I think in the long run, both approaches are going to get there at the same time and with the same amount of money, because although an individual #1 system may cost a lot less than #2, you have to account for all the failures in #1 that didn't pan out.

      --


      Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
    52. Re:Glad to see... by AaronLawrence · · Score: 1

      But its been virtually unused and nobody can suggest much use for it in the future. Certainly space manufacturing is decades or centuries away and there is nothing valuable enough to justify using the shuttle to return it.

      --
      For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert. - Arthur C. Clarke
    53. Re:Glad to see... by OldeTimeGeek · · Score: 2

      Plus, NASA made Apollo 12 and 13 boring as Hell (until the unfortunate problem with the fuel cells), and 14 was a return to normalcy. Even though surveys said people liked the idea of a Space Program, they were not that interested in communicating that support to Congress.

      But boring was the whole idea, wasn't it? After Apollo 1, they wanted to have everything so nailed down that there was little to no chance of failure of any type. Because of this, they also didn't want to report little snags that occurred. I think that this came back and bit them because it drained all of the interesting stuff away. Except for Apollo 1 and 13, space exploration was never really shown as anything but routine. I think that's why the public lost interest - if you present something as boring, people get bored.

      Finally, I think that the Vietnam War drained all the ambition from the US public.

      I absolutely agree with this and would add that it also completely destroyed any respect that the American public had for the Federal Government. The hawks couldn't believe that the government was giving in to a bunch of unwashed hippies and the doves couldn't tolerate that we had gotten in in the first place. Hmmm. Sounds a bit familiar, doesn't it?

    54. Re:Glad to see... by AaronLawrence · · Score: 1

      That doesn't cover shuttle costs either, which are a lot higher, at around $20,000 per pound. http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-02-04-shu ttle-critics_x.htm

      Doesn't look to good in comparison to the expendables.

      --
      For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert. - Arthur C. Clarke
    55. Re:Glad to see... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Soon enough, they'll be modifying the Moon to look like the Death Star.

      That's no Death Star...

    56. Re:Glad to see... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Congress didn't put a movie prop on board. Why not just skip the obvious middle arguments and head right for the NASCAR style ads on the outside of the shuttle? /hates the manned portion of the NASA program for being self serving PR enterprise.

    57. Re:Glad to see... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      I think NASA could more easily improve their image by putting a few cameras on the shuttle.. and showing us what the astronauts are actually doing when they're going through the procedures to return to earth
      I don't think showing a bunch of people crapping themselves in fear while praying to their mummies would be great PR somehow...
      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    58. Re:Glad to see... by Shanrak · · Score: 1

      Hey, just focusing on space doesn't mean it isn't okay to spend a very small amount of extra resources for cultural values. I actually like to hear about things like this since it tells me that those NASA people aren't just a bunch of people who distains everything on earth and thinks only space is worthy of their attention.

      --
      This post may or may not contain cancer causing materials.
    59. Re:Glad to see... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you missed #3. Manned spaceflight is a pointless waste of resources (lol @ sending a movie prop into space) that would be better used on unmanned missions where "safety" isn't a big issue at all.

    60. Re:Glad to see... by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 1

      New? SpaceShipOne is an evolutionary step toward space. It is similar in design to the Bell X-1 that was developed back in 1945. This fact doesn't take anything away from Rutan's venture, just that by limiting the engineering objective to light loads (passengers) to sub-orbital flight allows him to revisit an abandoned design.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    61. Re:Glad to see... by The+Great+Pretender · · Score: 1

      "Personally, I think NASA could more easily improve their image by putting a few cameras on the shuttle" Sell the rights to VH1 or MTV for the next crappy reality show. We've already got the spaceman love triangle, that could be introduced in the middle of the season "reunion on the space station". Perhaps one male and 6 females, every week a lady gets eliminated and sent back to Earth. Sort of a Real-World/Flavor of Love/Batchelor thing. With the shit that teens watch now, I bet they'd be able to double their research budget.

      --
      A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.
    62. Re:Glad to see... by recharged95 · · Score: 1
      "So what you're saying is that this is really cheap advertising."

      For Lucasfilm, and not NASA. All this 30th anniv. SW marketing is getting beaten to a pulp as irrelevant pop culture.

    63. Re:Glad to see... by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      At least they'll want us to believe they're only modifying it to look like the Death Star, while actual"#$//" NO CARRIER.
      The real tragedy here is that he was still using a modem....
    64. Re:Glad to see... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd much rather watch Mark Hammil launched out of the airlock sans space suit... that would be riveting!

    65. Re:Glad to see... by davidsyes · · Score: 1

      "Maybe put together some CG of the shuttle doing what it does when the astronauts press the buttons on the flight deck. Show us that when they're going through the procedures.. instead of the same shot of the earth from the ISS for 40 minutes."

      Probably won't happen. NASA, TSA, and the rest of the families would be afred of Terrists takin' over the Shuttle...

      Besides, nothin' like dazzling and mesmerizing the 'Merkun public with the Big Blue Marble...

      --
      Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
    66. Re:Glad to see... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL

    67. Re:Glad to see... by falcon5768 · · Score: 1

      you didnt watch it from inside the shuttle, which is what the OP wants to see.

      --

      "Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."

    68. Re:Glad to see... by MM_LONEWOLF · · Score: 1

      I can imagine the conversation between the astronaut and the engineer. "This thing gonna fly?" "The computer said it would." "But is it gonna fly?" "The simulations said so." "Are we still using that crappy foam?" "Um, I don't think we could find another supplier in time." "Great." "On the other hand, we made sure that no former astronauts will be stalking you when you get back to earth."

      --
      To live without killing is a thought which could electrify the world, if men were capable of staying awake long enough.
    69. Re:Glad to see... by eclectic4 · · Score: 1

      Why?

      Corroboration and multiple resources are always good, but Wiki isn't nearly as bas today as it seems.

      --

      "The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance - it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel Boorstin
    70. Re:Glad to see... by mfrank · · Score: 1

      I would think that the cost to orbit would only use the cargo weight, not the weight of the whole friggin orbiter.

    71. Re:Glad to see... by nih · · Score: 1

      Glad to see that the human obsession with symbolic gestures isn't dead yet.

      --
      I'm a rabbit startled by the headlights of life :(
    72. Re:Glad to see... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      NO, it's a publicity stunt. There is a difference.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    73. Re:Glad to see... by WRX+SKy · · Score: 1

      How do you plan on launching the cargo into orbit without the "whole friggin orbiter".

      By your logic my internet bill should be $0.35 a month since it's unreasonable for me to pay for the infrastructure to deliver said internet... only the ones and zeros it carries.

    74. Re:Glad to see... by LordVader717 · · Score: 1

      Pitty that space logistics don't work that way.

      To put it it simply, the shuttle is going up anyway to do a specific mission, lightsabre or no.
      The high cost comes from the high level of planning and preparation that goes into a space launch. The thousands of people who are employed to work on the program, and the many inspections that are made to everything used.
      The program isn't going to cost more just because of a small piece of metal being taken aboard.

      Having said that, launching something with the shuttle would cost a bajillion times more than with a proton rocket.
      And considering how much money will be shuffled around just to report on the lighsabre, and how much attention the mission might gain from this, a few thousand dollars wouldn't even be an issue.

    75. Re:Glad to see... by Enlightenment · · Score: 1

      But it's impossible to stop... you just keep clicking and clicking, till eventually you have 1024 MB of tabs open and Firefox starts to despise you.

    76. Re:Glad to see... by MikeDirnt69 · · Score: 1

      Dude, if their railguns stop working, they have to defend themselves somehow! Bad, bad Martians...

      --
      Am I eval()? - http://www.monst3r.com.br
    77. Re:Glad to see... by Nibs+Niven · · Score: 1

      "In the mid 70's, the American public wasn't terribly interested in funding anything even remotely related to space. What little interest had long since drained away after Apollo 13 (and would have probably been gone after Apollo 12 had the explosion not happened)." I think a lot of people were pretty interested, until they saw the astronauts driving around in a buggy and playing golf. Even I, as a wide-eyed youth, thought that was a huge waste of time and money. It didn't help that the astronaut's egos were starting to rub people the wrong way. When asked about the frivolity of golfing on the moon, Shepard said something along the lines of, "STFU! I'm an astronaut, WTF are you?" We were expecting them to start building a moon base in preparation for the Mars Mission. Instead, all we got was that POS Skylab...

  4. Careful... by Treskin · · Score: 5, Funny

    Hey, now. That's one of the great artifacts of geekdom, and they're risking it on a shuttle launch? I seem to recall NASA's shuttles being a little... what's the word... explody, at times. Losing another crew would be bad enough, but Luke's saber? C'mon!

    1. Re:Careful... by SC-James · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Your attempt at humor was lost when it involved real people dying.

    2. Re:Careful... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it was funny up until people dying, then it became genious!

    3. Re:Careful... by tsm_sf · · Score: 5, Funny

      Tragedy is when I cut my finger, comedy is when you fall into an open manhole and die.

      - Mel Brooks

      --
      Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
    4. Re:Careful... by MadnessASAP · · Score: 1, Insightful

      On the contrary, he raises a very good point. NASA is sending up a priceless (at lest to many of people) artifact in a vehicle that has a history of well blowing up. Now granted this isn't the first time that they've done such things and it is still more then likely that it will survive it's just kind of funny to think that the lightsaber might be lost forever just because the damn shuttle blew up. (again)

      --
      I may agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to face the consequences of saying it.
    5. Re:Careful... by Richard+W.M.+Jones · · Score: 2, Informative

      An irreplaceable (though probably not priceless) drawing by an Auschwitz victim was lost aboard Columbia (reference).

      Rich.

    6. Re:Careful... by Bastard+of+Subhumani · · Score: 1

      It's how it would have wanted to go. If it was a person.

      --
      Only three things are certain; death, taxes, and apocryphal quotations - Ben Franklin.
    7. Re:Careful... by Bob+Cat+-+NYMPHS · · Score: 1

      I find your lack of respect disturbing.

    8. Re:Careful... by khallow · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't worry about the jokes, myself. They can put the lightsaber in a titanium (or the like) box and sufficiently protect it from a Shuttle disaster.

    9. Re:Careful... by robbiethefett · · Score: 1

      You know, I agree.. the space shuttle seems a risky transport vessel for what, in my opinion, is basically the most holy artifact on the planet. If NASA was smart, they would take this Holyest of Holies into space, list it on e-bay with a reserve of $1 million, and threaten to fire it into the sun if no one meets the reserve. I would personally do whatever it takes to get a million bucks just to ensure it's survival.. Probably a lot more to secure ownership. Any large ladies need some lovin? I've got a loooong night ahead of me.

      --
      "Luke, you've switched off your targeting computer, what's wrong?"
    10. Re:Careful... by captain_dope_pants · · Score: 0

      Scenario 1: The mission is successful and the lightsabre is fired into space probably never to be seen again.

      Scenario 2:The Shuttle explodes and the lightsabre will probably never be seen again.

      =P

      --
      while (true != false) process_more_stupid_code();
    11. Re:Careful... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the lightsaber would be safe until some redneck from my neck of the woods sells it on e-bay like they did to the remnants of the last shuttle that went down.

    12. Re:Careful... by ofcourseyouare · · Score: 1

      Hey TSM -- I'm outraged! I quoted the exact same quote just last Friday and got a miserable 3 for it (i.e. nothing except for my karma bonus) -- now you quote it a few days later and get a 5... what kind of exam system is this? ; )

      Still it is a great quote... but is it "sewer" or "manhole"?

      Re:how is this funny?(Score:3) by ofcourseyouare (965770) * on Friday August 24, @01:22PM (#20341909)
      Someone *else's* pain and anguish is funny because, as the divine Mel Brooks put it, "Tragedy is when I cut my finger. Comedy is when you walk into an open sewer and die."

  5. huh, isn't this dangerous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wouldn't that lightsaber cause problems? Like damaging the heat shield or such. You know, these shuttles are rather vulnerable.

    1. Re:huh, isn't this dangerous? by Curien · · Score: 1

      It'll be fine. In a pinch, the saber can substitute for an inanimate carbon rod.

      --
      It's always a long day... 86400 doesn't fit into a short.
    2. Re:huh, isn't this dangerous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      in rod we trust!

    3. Re:huh, isn't this dangerous? by kan0r · · Score: 1

      It's always a long day... 86400 doesn't fit into a short. Depending on the platform, that is. :)
    4. Re:huh, isn't this dangerous? by Curien · · Score: 1

      "Depending on the platform" is the mantra of the C programmer.

      --
      It's always a long day... 86400 doesn't fit into a short.
  6. Really cool if by dotslashdot · · Score: 5, Funny

    What would be really cool is if some aliens found it and made operational and then shipped it to me using GalEx (GalaxyExpress). Then I could go up to my boss, rattle my light saber by saying "Look. I am your fodder." Khoo khaa.

    1. Re:Really cool if by Phydaux · · Score: 1

      If only you'd extended your fantasy to use Planet Express instead. You could have a sexy one-eyed mutant with purple hair deliver it.

    2. Re:Really cool if by apodyopsis · · Score: 1

      You mean "Galaxy Quest" style?

      You got me thinking what would happen if some aliens saw other Sci-Fi films and made them real.

      For example:

      Alien? Then manufacture a 7ft killing machine of an alien.
      Babylon5. I think that would be kind of cool.
      'Trek, best not to go there. Galaxy Quest got there first.

      But what would they make of 2001, A Scanner Darkly, Solaris or ET? I find the idea of making the ship from ET somehow ridiculous. The old classic Cygnus from "The Black Hole" would be most excellent - I always like that. Of course, if they made an "authentic" Millennium Falcon it would be constantly falling apart when you needed it the most.

      Hey ho, better get back to doing some work... zzz.

    3. Re:Really cool if by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      We should send this; http://www.realdoll.com/

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    4. Re:Really cool if by celle · · Score: 1

      Forget that, use it to clean out congress and the administration.

  7. NASA must have too much money by Alain+Williams · · Score: 2, Insightful

    At a cost of about $9,000 per kilogramme to get something into orbit with the shuttle, is this really the best use of tax payers' money ?

    1. Re:NASA must have too much money by Ubitsa_teh_1337 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually, though this may come as a surprise, the space shuttle is not fueled by money, it's fueled by rocket fuel. The $9,000/kilo figure is just an average based on how much it costs to launch the shuttle and how heavy the shuttle is. Adding a .5kg lightsaber doesn't change how expensive the launch will be, at all.

    2. Re:NASA must have too much money by RuBLed · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure it's worth it. The astronauts are bored with their Force Push and Force Pull powers, they want something different to do in their idle times. I heard that they wanted to bring Darth Vader's mask too but they we're turned down.. too bad.. oh well..

    3. Re:NASA must have too much money by SamP2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, but it means that something else (of potential scientific or utilitarian use) will be left behind.

      Saying a lightsaber doesn't add an extra cost to a shuttle is like saying you should ride the bus free because the bus is driving anyways, and 1 more person won't change the cost of paying for the gas or the driver's salary. But that either means someone else won't be able to get on, or the bus generates less revenue which will simply rollover to either less bus service in the future or higher ticket costs for the rest, to cover for that loss.

      There's a REASON there's such a huge pricetag on lifting anything in orbit, and you can't say "well the shuttle's gonna fly anyways so I might as well throw this trinket in", especially when there are a ton of legitimate things waiting YEARS for a chance of being lifted into space.

    4. Re:NASA must have too much money by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      especially when there are a ton of legitimate things waiting YEARS for a chance of being lifted into space. Meh, the reason why things, and people, wait years to get a chance to fly has nothing to do with technical capability and everything to do with politics.

      That's what being an astronaut is.. suckin' ass for your chance.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    5. Re:NASA must have too much money by poopdeville · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There's a REASON there's such a huge pricetag on lifting anything in orbit, and you can't say "well the shuttle's gonna fly anyways so I might as well throw this trinket in", especially when there are a ton of legitimate things waiting YEARS for a chance of being lifted into space.

      Too bad they weigh enough that they don't fit in this flight's spare capacity, like the light saber does. There's a limit to how much each flight can carry. They fit as much scientific stuff as they can on each one. But there's often spare capacity.

      You're just wrong.

      --
      After all, I am strangely colored.
    6. Re:NASA must have too much money by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

      Actually, though this may come as a surprise, the space shuttle is not fueled by money, it's fueled by rocket fuel. The $9,000/kilo figure is just an average based on how much it costs to launch the shuttle and how heavy the shuttle is. Adding a .5kg lightsaber doesn't change how expensive the launch will be, at all.

      Actually, the Mercury astronauts hit it on the head in one when they said, "No bucks, no Buck Rogers." Gotta buy the rocket fuel...

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    7. Re:NASA must have too much money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *agree parent*; Not to mention the fact that George Lucas probably footed the bill. The publicity alone will earn him more than $9,000 * (weight of the light saber) in future revenues, so he might as well write a check for it.

      If you've got some spare junk you want to send into orbit, I'm sure Nasa would be willing to consider taking it up if you pay them 2-3x the cost.

    8. Re:NASA must have too much money by Capt+James+McCarthy · · Score: 2, Funny

      Use the budget Luke.

      --
      There are no loopholes. It's either legal or it's not.
    9. Re:NASA must have too much money by ijakings · · Score: 0

      America? BUYing fuel? America doesn't buy fuel they Invade middle eastern countries when they run out.

      Oh in other news Iran IS building the death star, although they cant find it they are sure its there.

      Thus the shuttle program has fuel for another several years.

    10. Re:NASA must have too much money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Your understanding of economics is only valid when the bus is at a loss to begin with, the moment the bus breaks even or is profitable its an invalid comparison.

      As for the value of sending Luke Lightsabre into orbit? 9 000 dollars/kg, the value of selling Luke Lightsabre (post-space travel) on eBay? Significantly more I'm betting.

      Why would NASA possibly do it? Because they're probably sick of being given bullshit objectives and being underfunded - they're planning to raise some money on the side so they can fund actual research instead of whatever hype-word is currently on the present administrations tongue - remember that they're geeks too and have geeky dreams of seeing progress occur. (or maybe this last part is just my wet dream of a space agency that produces results).

    11. Re:NASA must have too much money by Lunarsight · · Score: 1

      I think there's a significant difference between bringing a light saber into space, and one additional person riding a bus. A better bus analogy would be for the bus company to charge somebody an additional fee for walking onto the bus with the light-saber versus walking onto the bus empty-handed. How often do you hear of bus companies charging more if a passenger brings some object on the bus with them? I personally have never heard of this, at least not for an object of that size. So, I think, based on this example, it is commonplace for buses to give objects 'free rides'. (Just not people.) One must make the distinction. (On a sidenote, if somebody did try and board a bus wielding a light-sabre, I could see them being mistaken for a terrorist in this paranoid society we live in. Don't laugh - remember the Etch-A-Sketch scare in Boston last year?)

    12. Re:NASA must have too much money by PJ1216 · · Score: 1

      Yea, but if that bus has Luke's Lightsaber on it, think of how many people would wanna ride it. It'd increase revenue...

    13. Re:NASA must have too much money by Bastard+of+Subhumani · · Score: 1

      America? BUYing fuel? America doesn't buy fuel they Invade middle eastern countries when they run out.
      Chuck Norris is American, but he is not America.
      --
      Only three things are certain; death, taxes, and apocryphal quotations - Ben Franklin.
    14. Re:NASA must have too much money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention the fact that unless NASA doesn't get a crap-ton of additional funding, the shuttle program will end in 3 years (2010).

      If this generates enough public attention to get say 2 billion extra, the shuttle can fly until it is replaced (2014). Our other option would be to have just the Russians accessing the ISS.

    15. Re:NASA must have too much money by Bastard+of+Subhumani · · Score: 1

      If this generates enough public attention to get say 2 billion extra
      If my aunt had balls she'd by my uncle.
      --
      Only three things are certain; death, taxes, and apocryphal quotations - Ben Franklin.
    16. Re:NASA must have too much money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, they will just have to ensure that one of the astronauts is .5 kg lighter than another particular one, then there will be absolutely no weight discrepancy. He can put the lightsabre in his pocket to ensure that no extra cargo space is wasted. Will that satisfy your jealousy that you're not going into space also?

    17. Re:NASA must have too much money by everphilski · · Score: 1

      By your logic, we should be sending up anorexic midget bikini model astronauts into space. And while that might made an interesting reality show, we don't, for some reason. Astronauts do get to bring trinkets up with them, in fact, this might be part of someone's budget. That figure you quote is the (total cost to refurbish, fuel, and pay everyone) divided by (mass). Adding a pound does not add to the numerator (except a few bucks of LOX and LH2, which are pennies a pound) ... so if anything we are lowering the cost to orbit! High-Five!

      There's a REASON there's such a huge pricetag on lifting anything in orbit, and you can't say "well the shuttle's gonna fly anyways so I might as well throw this trinket in", especially when there are a ton of legitimate things waiting YEARS for a chance of being lifted into space.

      like what? We haven't used shuttle to loft satellites in awhile, besides some very minor experiments, and I doubt half a kilogram is going to bump anything. We've been using shuttle for station construction. Again, half a kilogram is rounding error. There are a hundred ways to account for it.

    18. Re:NASA must have too much money by Eponymous+Bastard · · Score: 1

      So, assuming this is a .5kg prop, it would mean they paid $4500 for a lot of publicity and goodwill. Seems like a great deal to me.

      If congress dislikes it, they can set up a donation drive, I'm sure they'll get more than $4500 if they agree to put it on a museum afterwards.

      BTW, Every shuttle mission carries certain memorabilia. See for example the challenger flag which survided the Challenger accident.

    19. Re:NASA must have too much money by coolmoose25 · · Score: 1

      And I suppose the Apollo astronauts shouldn't have brought a golf club and a ball either? Jeez... Lighten up pal.

      --
      Brawndo: It's what plants crave!
    20. Re:NASA must have too much money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, though this may come as a surprise, the space shuttle is not fueled by money, it's fueled by rocket fuel. really? and here i thought they just loaded a bunch of Benjamins into the engine
    21. Re:NASA must have too much money by sohare · · Score: 1

      No, but it means that something else (of potential scientific or utilitarian use) will be left behind.

      Saying a lightsaber doesn't add an extra cost to a shuttle is like saying you should ride the bus free because the bus is driving anyways, and 1 more person won't change the cost of paying for the gas or the driver's salary. But that either means someone else won't be able to get on, or the bus generates less revenue which will simply rollover to either less bus service in the future or higher ticket costs for the rest, to cover for that loss.

      There's a REASON there's such a huge pricetag on lifting anything in orbit, and you can't say "well the shuttle's gonna fly anyways so I might as well throw this trinket in", especially when there are a ton of legitimate things waiting YEARS for a chance of being lifted into space.

      How did this get a +5 insightful? It's a gigantic fallacious argument, namely a slippery slope.

      One person not paying for a bus ride doesn't matter at all. It's like removing a single point from a real interval. The Lesbegue measure of that interval is still the same.

      What you're doing is equating that one person not paying for the bus, or that single point, to no one paying and removing the entire interval, respectively. These are two very different situations, and it's just intellectually dishonest to equate them.

    22. Re:NASA must have too much money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry. There will always be more tax dollars.

    23. Re:NASA must have too much money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not true. The space shuttle is not at full capacity on every flight. In fact, it seldom is. When it carries up really big stuff like those solar panels it is pretty much maxed out between the solar arrays, the robotic arm, the crew, and miscellaneous supplies, but even then there is a tolerance.

      Sure there's a ton of legitimate things waiting to go into space, but you can't fit them all on at once, and you can seldom juggle the constraints to max everything out on one flight. STS-118 flew pretty light...about 5000 kg less than STS-117...because its cargo bay was almost full between the relatively light S5 truss, the Spacehab module and an external cargo rack, and its work schedule was filled up with a variety of tasks related to construction of the station.

  8. Yay tax dollars! by Shwaffle · · Score: 1

    Glad to see our tax dollars hard at work for something so trivial.

    1. Re:Yay tax dollars! by catbutt · · Score: 1

      Unless the reason they are doing this is to get some money from Lucas.

    2. Re:Yay tax dollars! by HalifaxRage · · Score: 0

      Yeah, well, you'll be glad it's there when the Russians challenge them to a duel over that bottomless pit in the station's core.

      --
      bomb the us up set someone
  9. Where no Geek has gone before by edwardpickman · · Score: 1

    If they really wanted to fire imaginations and send it where Geeks dream of going they should send it to a whore house in Nevada. It'd be cheaper, get more press, and inspire generations of Geeks to shoot for the stars, former porn stars but they're still stars damnmit!

  10. Actually not Luke's original lightsaber by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    The picture is of his lightsaber from Ep. 6 - "Return of the Jedi" which he built after losing his hand and his original lightsaber (inherited from Anakin) during his battle with Darth Vader in Ep. 5. //no thanks necessary - it's my job as a pedant and Star Wars geek.

  11. Do they let wookies on airplanes? by NoxNoctis · · Score: 1

    How is Chewie getting on the plane? I doubt he has a driver's license, passport, or military ID. What about the metal detector? Hell, the bomb detector?!?! Wookies should not get preferential treatment in my not-so-humble opinion.

    --
    "You're awefully cute, but unfortunately for you, you're made of meat."
    1. Re:Do they let wookies on airplanes? by QuantumG · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Uh huh. Maybe if more people ripped the arms off TSA agents we'd have more sensible air travel security.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    2. Re:Do they let wookies on airplanes? by Dachannien · · Score: 1

      I suspect they're going to pretend he's a prisoner or something. All it takes is some loosely-fitting wrist binders, you know.

    3. Re:Do they let wookies on airplanes? by gitargr8 · · Score: 0

      Here's how Chewie gets on the plane:

      TSA Agent: Let me see your passport.
      Obi-Wan: [waves hand] You don't need to see his passport.
      TSA Agent: We don't need to see his passport.
      Obi-Wan: This isn't the wookie you're looking for.
      TSA Agent: This isn't the wookie we're looking for.
      Obi-Wan: He can go about his business.
      TSA Agent: You can go about your business.
      Obi-Wan: Move along.
      TSA Agent: Move along... move along.

  12. American efficiency! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Think about it: Russia gets ~$20m for launching a 150lb person into space; by making itself popular, NASA gets _at least_ $20m in extra funding from Congress for sending a 1lb piece of pop culture into space. American efficiency at its best!

  13. Um by HillaryWBush · · Score: 0

    Is it going to come back?

    1. Re:Um by OldManAndTheC++ · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yes. It will be ejected into space, while miles below on the ground, Mark Hamill will reach spaceward, grimacing slightly as if straining on the toilet. The lightsaber will fly towards his outstretched hand through the power of The Force.

      This is also how he retrieves his TV remote without getting up.

      --
      Soylent Green is peoplicious!
    2. Re:Um by RuBLed · · Score: 5, Funny

      This is also how he retrieves his TV remote without getting up.


      from the toilet?
    3. Re:Um by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. It will be ejected into space, while miles below on the ground, Mark Hamill will reach spaceward, grimacing slightly as if straining on the toilet. The lightsaber will fly towards his outstretched hand through the power of The Force.

      This is also how he retrieves his TV remote without getting up. Coincidentally, it's also how he managed to eject himself through the windshield of a vehicle after straining to get a fart out.
    4. Re:Um by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Mark Hammil never goes to the toilet in the morning. Otherwise he'd have nothing to do in the afternoon.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    5. Re:Um by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know about you, but I'm a busy man. Where else would a person have 5 hours to watch TV in one sitting?

  14. UGH by posterlogo · · Score: 0, Redundant

    I wish they'd launch George Lucas into space. Enough already.

  15. The Next Generation by Nymz · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If firing a Star Wars movie prop into space, is what it takes, to get the next generations attention and acceptance of continued funding of NASA programs, then perhaps we should rethink the whole thing. Isn't teaching the truth about outer-space enough? because I don't think another Lance Bass is the way to save NASA.

    1. Re:The Next Generation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But are we being told the truth?
      I highly doubt we're being told any of the real interesting stuff they're learning.

      Yes I'm talking about aliens. Find some aliens or produce proof that you've already found em.
      You'll get your renewed interest.

      We went to the moon almost 40 years ago. Even back then they thought that by now we'd be seeing some useful real world gadgets and machinery.
      Not that we don't have some pretty damn cool toys, but I think we as a nation expected a little bit more out of space than what we've seen.

      But more on topic, firing the light saber into space is just stupid. What is that possibly going to accomplish other than to get nerds gasping.
      And not /. nerds, real hardcore basement dwelling nerds (see comic book guy, et al)

    2. Re:The Next Generation by kamapuaa · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Lance Bass didn't actually go into space, but as a rich person who wanted to spend his own money to make it into space, that sort of thing is exactly what the space program needs. Private enterprise realizing financial opportunities in space flight would be about the best possible thing that could happen to NASA, whether it's exotic vacations, or increased satellites, or zero-G research, or mining some exotic kind of space narcotic, or whatever the fuck people might want from outer space and be willing to spend money for. NASA right now exists somewhere between being a long term investment and as a propaganda arm of the US government, its future is always going to be in doubt while that's true.

      --
      Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
    3. Re:The Next Generation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Yu know, I have to wonder if sending the damn thing up is really as cheap as you think. I've worked at NASA for well over 20 years and not much of anything that flies is cheap - if for no other reason than than the testing which must be done first and I am not talking about the testing required to ensure functionality in the on-orbit environment. I am talking about safety of flight issues. Just about everything we fly is tested for things like: 1. If it gets broken will it spew nasty little fragments into the air - fragments which in a weightless environment might float around intil they were inhaled by a crew member of mucked up some piece of equipment. Think about the average broken light bulb here. 2. If per chance it were to be invloved in a fire what if any toxic gases would be released? 3. Out gassing - what little nasty things could be released into the cabin's atmosphere when exposed to the reduced pressure found in both the shuttle and the ISS crew cabins? This is just a short list of the many things NASA checks for before sending an item up - so did NASA wive some of their own safety requirements to send this object up, or are they admitting that they often go overboard with the expensive testing because no one wants to be the one who takes the risk of admitting that some of this is overkill?

    4. Re:The Next Generation by Bastard+of+Subhumani · · Score: 1, Funny

      We went to the moon almost 40 years ago.
      What? Nobody believes that round here.
      --
      Only three things are certain; death, taxes, and apocryphal quotations - Ben Franklin.
    5. Re:The Next Generation by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but Lance only wanted to go up there to find Planet Unicorn.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    6. Re:The Next Generation by xednieht · · Score: 1

      It's not NASA's job to get the next generation interested in space. NASA = Scientists (and brilliant ones I might say).

      There is nothing in space for the general population of the current generation or the next generation for that matter, as such there is understandably very little interest beyond the "oooh that's cool".

      Even the astronauts that go up there for any considerable time cannot wait to come back. Come back for what? Ohhh the simple things like feeling a breeze on your face, or grilling a nice fat juicy burger on an open grill. Both of which you cannot do in space at this time.

      Let's see it took several thousand years to even discover America after humanity discovered how to sail a ship on water. If space becomes accessible to the general population in, ohhh say 200 years from now it would still be an orders of magnitude accomplishment from a historical perspective. Sailing gravity is a bit more challenging than sailing water.

      Better to leave the "generating interest in space" task to professional buzz-meisters like Sir Richard Branson, NASA has other issues to deal with. And generating interest in space should and most likely will be slow and evolutionary, not revolutionary.

      After all even after America was discovered and people knew it existed it's not like they started flocking here in droves. Those that had something to gain, whether financially or from raw curiosity, took the perilous journey. That same dynamic seems to be in play with space.

      --

      Hope is the currency of fools
    7. Re:The Next Generation by GeckoX · · Score: 1

      Note to whomever chose to mod that Troll: It's A Joke.

      --
      No Comment.
    8. Re:The Next Generation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      QUOTE: ...exotic vacations, or increased satellites, or zero-G research, or mining some exotic kind of space narcotic, or whatever the fuck people might want from outer space and be willing to spend money for

      Or zero-G pr0n. Just like with still photography and video cassettes and DVDs and the internet, technology will be driven forward by the porn industry. Bring it on.

    9. Re:The Next Generation by E++99 · · Score: 1

      If you want to use the space shuttle payload to get people excited about space again, instead of sending up an ancient movie prop, offer to the general public the discounted service of putting small hobby satellites into orbit for $500 a piece.

    10. Re:The Next Generation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lance Bass didn't want to spend his own money ($20 mil would probably break him); he was looking for companies to sponsor his mission.

  16. Great... by Chlorus · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...now some alien civilization will find it and a) sell it on Ebay for a ludicrous amount or b) brag to various and sundry that they own the original prop. Or they'll just do with it what they'll probably do to the Voyager probes: Toss it in the trash.

    1. Re:Great... by Shivetya · · Score: 1

      d) or V'ger it and send it back with an army of lightsaber wielding sharks!

      --
      * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
  17. Why? by Jartan · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm not much of the sort to care about this thing usually but I have to question what the point is of sending a expensive cultural item flinging off into space is? Shouldn't the thing be in a museum or something somewhere? Or perhaps sell it and get the Astronauts some new cupholders?

    1. Re:Why? by edmazur · · Score: 2, Insightful
      FTA:

      The laser-like Jedi weapon is being flown to the orbiting outpost and back in honor of the 30th anniversary of director George Lucas' franchise.
    2. Re:Why? by Zwets · · Score: 1

      Hmm.. I think the moderators missed that Indiana Jones reference :-(

      --
      One of the lessons of history is that nothing is often a good thing to do and always a clever thing to say. - Will Duran
    3. Re:Why? by Slightly+Askew · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      So do you, Dr. Kimble.

      --
      Public use of any portable music system is a virtually guaranteed indicator of sociopathic tendencies. -- Zoso
    4. Re:Why? by GeckoX · · Score: 1

      Really? Cause I'm sure we all thought they were going to throw it out of the shuttle just for kicks.

      Is it me or is just about everything flying over most peoples heads in this thread?

      The point being that some people are unsure whether cultural items should be making trips to space even if the intent is for them to come back...considering the fact that NASA doesn't have a perfect track record in the 'and back' department.

      Now, personally, I don't really care either way. I'm more concerned about the people we send up coming back myself. To that end, I find it a bit disconcerting that those involved in ensuring this are diverting even a minute amount of energy towards some prop from a movie making said trip...

      --
      No Comment.
    5. Re:Why? by Frumious+Wombat · · Score: 1

      They could be more true to the original movie, leave the lightsabre on the ground, and send Mark Hamill floating home instead... (nothing against Hamill, but that was a great lost moment in the original film. One fewer whiney heroes-to-be.)

      --
      the more accurate the calculations became, the more the concepts tended to vanish into thin air. R. S. Mulliken
    6. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why the fuck do they need cup holders?

      in zero-g those things just stay on.

    7. Re:Why? by BBF_BBF · · Score: 1

      Funny, that's what I thought when they I heard that the shuttle Columbia had been "lost" during re-entry. The historical significance of the "original" Luke-skywalker lightsaber pales in comparison.

    8. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The lightsaber has been on display at the Smithsonian and in various museums on a touring exhibit for years now. Maybe its bored and wants to take a vacation.

  18. Not a big deal by Derek+Loev · · Score: 5, Funny

    Guys, don't worry, I'm sure it's not the real lightsaber. The real one was lost years ago. This is a digitally remastered (better) lightsaber with added features and toys! Very soon you will be able to buy your own original (digitally remastered and better) lightsaber at your local convenience store and you too can shoot it off into space. And it really is a good buy, George Lucas has assured us the money will go to deleting the entire Obi-Wan Darth Vader duel of A New Hope and adding a new scene (digitally remastered and better, of course) with Ewan McGregor. It's going to be great!

    1. Re:Not a big deal by gbobeck · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Also, with this lightsaber, Greedo shoots first.

      --
      Navicula hydraulica plena anguilarum est. Omnes castelli tuus nostri sunt. Ed elli avea del cul fatto trombetta.
    2. Re:Not a big deal by Derek+Loev · · Score: 1

      It's so nice to have a big picture of Hayden Christiansen on this lightsaber, the old lightsaber was just boring.

    3. Re:Not a big deal by Big_Monkey_Bird · · Score: 1

      I hear they're gonna replace the lightsabers with handheld radios in the re-re-release.

    4. Re:Not a big deal by fishbowl · · Score: 1


      "It's so nice to have a big picture of Hayden Christiansen on this lightsaber, the old lightsaber was just boring."

      Those of us who were already old shutterbugs at the time recognized the thing for what it was. Camera collectors have suffered for years, not just because flash handles are unobtainable now, but also because many good Graflex bodies and lenses were destroyed by Star Wars fans whenever they were found in garage sales and thrift stores -- they were only interested in the flash handle, and the rest of the cameras were just junk to them.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    5. Re:Not a big deal by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      George Lucas has assured us the money will go to deleting the entire Obi-Wan Darth Vader duel of A New Hope and adding a new scene (digitally remastered and better, of course) with Ewan McGregor.
      And all the stormtroopers will be replaced with singing Ewoks!
    6. Re:Not a big deal by earlymon · · Score: 1

      Uhhhh ... you mean like this? http://www.thinkgeek.com/geektoys/warfare/69de/

      --
      Pathological kinda promises Path + Logical - but instead, you get stuck with pathetic.
  19. We seem to be... by Derek+Loev · · Score: 4, Informative

    Star Wars Fans: We seem to be made to suffer. It's our lot in life.

    1. Re:We seem to be... by MikeyC01 · · Score: 1

      It's not a lot, but it's our life!

  20. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  21. Luke was my nick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was called Luke when I was 16. You know, computer guys called me Luke on BBSs. We had the dial up underground. Those were the days.

  22. Star Wars episodes I, II and III .... by jmhowitt · · Score: 1

    ..... Could they maybe take the masters for these with them and er, loose them?

  23. Such a waste by iminplaya · · Score: 1

    Now we may never know if ants can be trained to sort tiny screws in space.

    --
    What?
    1. Re:Such a waste by shinmai · · Score: 1

      I was waiting for someone to make that reference. Hope no-one decided to sneak chips onboard, though...

    2. Re:Such a waste by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      I was waiting for someone to make that reference.

      And I'm still waiting for my "Funny" mods...Tap tap tap...Helllooo...Is this thing on? Check, one, two...

      --
      What?
  24. New heat shield repair method? by nadamucho · · Score: 1

    Will this replace Standard Operating Procedure for in-orbit tile repair.

  25. NASA to Astronauts: Lose Weight! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    So NASA can save money by forcing the astronauts to lose mass ("weight"). Perhaps they will be sending waifs into space to save on money -- they'd have less mass, be more photogenic, and you needn't pack much food. Lastly, due to chronic malnutrition they'd have very little energy to engage in those lusty love triangles that seem to plague NASA. It's the perfect plan!

  26. Shouldn't it already be in space? by Enderandrew · · Score: 5, Funny

    After Vader cut off Luke's hand, I thought the saber would be tumbling somewhere in the Bespin system.

    The irony of that moment is that Luke's father "wanted him to have it", except Luke's father cut off his hand to disarm him of it. And apparently Obi-Wan's interpretation of "he wanted you to have it", is "I took it from him after I left the bastard for dead." Though, I imagine his phrasing seems a little more sentimental.

    --
    http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    1. Re:Shouldn't it already be in space? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, of course, as we all know, lightsabers are negatively affected by the force of a planet's gravity, so as soon as Luke's hand was cut off and fell down towards the gas giant Bespin, the lightsaber broke free of its weakened grasp and made its final break toward the heavens, where it now floats free.

    2. Re:Shouldn't it already be in space? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, in one of the Hand of Thrawn novels (The Last Command, if I recall correctly), Luke's lightsaber and severed hand had been recovered by the Emperor. Why he needs NASA to put it back into space is anyone's guess.

    3. Re:Shouldn't it already be in space? by Enderandrew · · Score: 1

      I don't normally respond to AC posts, but I'm going to prove how much of a geek I am. When the Thrawn/Zahn novels had been writen, cannon was still that the Emperor died. Thrawn led the emperor, and the Jedi-nemesis of the time was named something like Jorus C'Boath. Damned if I can recall the spelling, but I haven't read the novel in over ten years. Either way, it was later introduced in the Dark Empire comics that the Emperor himself was cloned and brought back on the planet Byss, but it was Thrawn and C'Boath who cloned Luke in The Last Command, which Mara got to kill.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    4. Re:Shouldn't it already be in space? by codemachine · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I found it funny that Obi-Wan interpreted Anikan's "I hate you!" to mean "please give the lightsaber that you just stole from me to the son I don't even know I have".

      Obi-Wan was certainly feeding a load of crap to Luke in Episode 4.

    5. Re:Shouldn't it already be in space? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed; it Joruus C'Baoth that made the clone, but the hand itself was found in the Emperor's personal trophy collection on Weyland, meaning it was the Emperor who'd had it recovered...

  27. glass of water by 7bit · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If you're sending up space shuttle Discovery, I doubt there's a lot of wasted costs on putting a lightsabre in there. :-p

    The average cost per pound to send to Low Earth Orbit is $3632 - $4587. [1]
    WoWz! So why aren't we training horse-jockeys to be astronauts?

    And if each astronaught has a glass of water before getting onto the shuttle? That would be pretty expensive too!

    I suspect the weight of the light saber safely falls within the margin of error they build into their fuel calculations and as such won't really cost them any more than they are already going to spend/use in fuel anyway. Well worth it in my opinion. There isn't any reason why we can't make all our endeavors a little more fun and inspiring, it's what humans are all about.
    1. Re:glass of water by YGingras · · Score: 1

      I just fail to see what is inspiring in launching a cheap flashlight handle in the great void. Launch the ratchet used by Rutan or take the solemn moment of the light saber throw to have an astronaut read an essay on _his_ quest for science instead. I want to hear about this real space explorer, not about a cheesy fictional hero from an over hyped space opera.

    2. Re:glass of water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ~ Chinese astronaut weight limit: men's weight under 50kg; women under 45kg.

      BTT: This is pretty strained even as a publicity stunt, the light sabre prop itself doesn't exactly glow like in the movie, I guess they could post-produce the interview where the astronauts wave it around, but its getting too stupid. Its symptomatic of NASA running out of ideas.

    3. Re:glass of water by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      I suspect the weight of the light saber safely falls within the margin of error they build into their fuel calculations and as such won't really cost them any more than they are already going to spend/use in fuel anyway.

      They've narrowed the margin of error pretty close to zero over the years as they've gained experience in operations. Things like fuel consumption, residuals, etc... etc... have become pretty much predictable, mostly because gravity is a constant and atmosphere conditions are measurable and roughly predictable. For missions to ISS the performance margins are so tight that the missions would be nearly impossible without this narrowed margin of error. (The Shuttle was designed to function mostly at a lower orbital inclination - higher inclinations cause performance hits.)
       
       

      There isn't any reason why we can't make all our endeavors a little more fun and inspiring, it's what humans are all about.

      Yeah, that's the amusing part about most of the replies to this article. Usually replies to articles about NASA and the Shuttle are filled with rants about how NASA should do more to attract attention, engage the imagination, etc... etc... And now they they are doing something (howsoever poorly and/or oddly chosen) - they get crap for doing it rather than something else.
       
      Poor NASA can't catch a break.
    4. Re:glass of water by jonbritton · · Score: 1

      > WoWz! So why aren't we training horse-jockeys to be astronauts?
      into
      We are. They're called robots. Most of us agree the cost of sending full-grown humans and their life-support systems into space isn't generally worth it. We can't convince the bots to wear those little jockey uniforms, though, which is unfortunate.

      > There isn't any reason why we can't make all our endeavors a little more
      > fun and inspiring, it's what humans are all about.

      Sure, fun and inspiring...but why this? I don't like 'Wars or 'Trek, but at least a Star Trek collectible would be a relevant symbol of human endeavor into space, as opposed to mythology in far-far-away galaxies. And believing a movie prop is on a shuttle isn't "fun" for me. MAYBE if there were two, and they were going to act out the hand-chopping scene, I'd dig this. But as it stands, it'd be more fun if they faked the opening scene from Farscape and pretended they were getting shot through a wormhole, or vacuum'd a BeeGee in effigy.

  28. Word of advice to NASA: by Jacco+de+Leeuw · · Score: 1

    Don't drop that light saber laser down first...

    --
    -------
    Warning: Slashdot may contain traces of nuts.
  29. A better project would of been to by forgotten_my_nick · · Score: 1

    To study of the effects of weightlessness on tiny screws.

    1. Re:A better project would of been to by grumling · · Score: 1
      --
      "Well, good luck finding a judge that doesn't run a bestiality site."
  30. Not everyone's happy about this ... by krou · · Score: 1

    Chewbacca apparently said, "ARRRRGHHH ARRR ARRR ARRR ARRR!" when he heard the news.

    Doesn't sound good. Personally, I think NASA are crazy to upset a wookie that can rip your arms off.

    --
    'If Christ had tweeted the sermon on the mount, it might have lasted until nightfall.' - John Perry Barlow
  31. In the year 2025... by Perseid · · Score: 1

    ...there will be a great battle between the Yodanians and the Jarjarites over possession of the staff of the great Lord Lucas.

    You think the Star Wars geeks are scary now. You just wait.

    1. Re:In the year 2025... by laejoh · · Score: 0

      Jarjarites? Are those a race of java developers or what?

  32. better use it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One of the astronauts had better get filmed waving it around wildly in the space station so we can add on the 'light' bit and swooshy sounds.

    perhaps the others could pretend to get chopped up by it for added fun.

  33. Great! Astronaut Fanfilms! by erroneus · · Score: 1, Funny

    First the StarWars Kid and now this!

    I can't wait to see astronauts "training with a remote" videos and letting people here on earth do the video editing. :) Please, someone donate some storm trooper armor and other stuff as well! :)

  34. Your tax dollars at work by DrXym · · Score: 1, Insightful

    What an utterly pointless and futile act. They should have auctioned the light sabre off and donated the proceeds to something that promotes or furthers science in some way.

  35. Serenity beat them to it by mattcoz · · Score: 4, Informative

    One of the crew members on a recent shuttle trip to the international space station brought the Firefly and Serenity DVDs up with them. Breaking Atmo

    1. Re:Serenity beat them to it by Frumious+Wombat · · Score: 1

      Probably to reassure themselves as they looked at the heat-resistant tiles, that it could be worse.

      --
      the more accurate the calculations became, the more the concepts tended to vanish into thin air. R. S. Mulliken
  36. Some days I'm glad I'm not an astronaut by martin-boundary · · Score: 1

    NASA will launch Luke Skywalker's original Jedi lightsaber into space along with the crew of the space shuttle Discovery.
    What I wanna know is how did NASA pick the crew? Pick a straw, any straw. If you pick the smallest you'll be sent tumbling into space attached to a Starwars toy lightsaber. Yup, even the pilot. Nope, we'll land the shuttle by remote control, nice try.
  37. Wheres the training driod? by Calathea · · Score: 1

    Surely they could have put a training droid on board so they could film it floating about and stick it on youtube.

    1. Re:Wheres the training driod? by MMatessa · · Score: 1
  38. Mark Hamill? by inicom · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Am I the only one sad that Mark Hamill isn't part of the ceremony? I'm sure it couldn't be a question of cost. Instead, the only "dignataries" at the send off and return are costumes. If Luke's saber is being used for publicity, the hand that wielded it should be as well.

    --
    -a.e.mossberg
    1. Re:Mark Hamill? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      If Luke's saber is being used for publicity, the hand that wielded it should be as well.

      Don't be silly; that got chopped off twenty years ago!

  39. And should the shuttle explode.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Then they already have their perfect excuse: The crew have become more powerful than we can possibly imagine. Come on, give me a break here. During the last launch they also had some serious problems, things seem to be getting worse again. Why don't they pay attention to things which matter?

  40. "That's no moon..." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obi-Wan: "That's no moon. That's the international space station."

  41. i... can't.. help myself by loafula · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    star wars is dumb! and so is dnd! neener neener neener...

    --
    FOXTROT UNIFORM CHARLIE KILO
  42. I'd rather see them send... by Peter+Simpson · · Score: 1

    ...a 1 x 4 x 9 flat black object.

    2001 was a much better film. Though not nearly as profitable, I guess.

    1. Re:I'd rather see them send... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course. 2001 was a classic, made in Britain, (as was Star Wars) and is in the top 10 best films of all time.

      So why would you want everyone to know about it? High culture is for the very few!

  43. How long will it last? by MutualDisdain · · Score: 1

    Does anyone know what material this is made of and how long it will last? I could see this being one of many items that space-faring treasure hunters will search for in the future. Though, if it gets sucked into Earth's atmosphere or melts under the heat of the sun, I guess not...

    --
    - Yes, I am posting at a -1, and no I will not use a proxy to bypass my circumstances.
    1. Re:How long will it last? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Huh?

      They're not ejecting it into space. It is flying up and then back on the shuttle.





      /Does no one read what they comment on anymore?

    2. Re:How long will it last? by MutualDisdain · · Score: 1

      Apparently I get the idiot award today. I misread something somewhere between compiles. Please mod me down as a lesson to others.

      --
      - Yes, I am posting at a -1, and no I will not use a proxy to bypass my circumstances.
  44. Fired by blahlemon · · Score: 2, Funny

    So Darth Vader gets screwed again. Lets face it, the whole series is really about him but noooo, his glory robbing little snot faced kid has got to prance around and steal his thunder. Typical younger generation...

    --
    It take more faith to believe in evolution than it takes to believe in God
  45. No need - we already have Mimas. by jpellino · · Score: 1

    That's no moon....

    --
    "Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
  46. What a waste by Big_Monkey_Bird · · Score: 1

    They know it's not real, right?

  47. Star Wars winning out over Star Trek by Digitus1337 · · Score: 1

    The OV-101 'Enterprise' was orginally set to be named 'Constitution' but fans of Star Trek convinced the powers that be to use another name. Bringing a Star Wars artifact up is a sin! They should be bringing some Trek relic, like one of those old Klingon disruptors, or Michael Dorn.

  48. And Darth Cheney will be there by whitroth · · Score: 1

    The Evil Empire, having captured Luke, will send his weapon away?

    Some Jedis y'all are.

                mark "bad Jedi! Trying! No lightsaber!

  49. I crush wit wherever it attempts to spring up by khallow · · Score: 1

    Tragedy is when I cut my finger, comedy is when you fall into an open sewer and die

  50. Carbon Rod by necro81 · · Score: 1

    Considering the tremendous amount of fanfare that the article describes will take place in transporting this old movie prop, and its overall shape, one could be forgiven for mistaking it for an inanimate carbon rod.

  51. Unlike the Lightsaber... by xednieht · · Score: 1

    the NASA crew will be coming back I hope...

    May the force be with them.

    --

    Hope is the currency of fools
  52. Re:Great! Astronaut Fanfilms! by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    ok that would be freakin' funny.... if one of the guys smuggled up a stormtroper helmet and perhaps the upper body stuff, for when they send a video feed back. I know there is no way they could smuggle that much stuff on undetected, but what a practical joke that would be. "Unnn sorry this isn't the spacecraft you are looking for, what are you doing on the imperial channel!" lol

  53. Floating Debris... by realsilly · · Score: 1

    Wait, didn't NASA just freak out a couple of missions ago because someone dropped a screw? If I remember correctly, they were quite worried that this tiny object would hit the shuttle and cause some damage.

    So now they plan on dropping a stage prop out there?

    I guess they can toss it away from earth. I wonder how fast it will be traveling if someone throws it?

    --
    Life takes interesting turns, but the most interest is when you're off the beaten path.
  54. I have a bad feeling about this. by superwiz · · Score: 1

    Don't tell me the odds!

    --
    Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
  55. Boy, the pressure's really on now. by seebs · · Score: 4, Funny

    They're gonna have to be extra careful not to blow this one up or anything, that saber's irreplaceable.

    --
    My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
  56. Third Shuttle Down . . . by Dausha · · Score: 1

    Okay, this deeply concerns me. We have already lost two shuttles due to accidents, and now NASA is inviting a third. Astronauts will get bored in space and will undoubtably engage in horse play. One of them will invariably remember the light saber and procure it from its handy storage bin. Once he has it in hand, he will likely activate it and start swinging it about---like we all do with a toy light saber. Except, this is _Luke's_ light saber; so it's real. I expect that he'll probably cut some critical component or cut through the shuttle's hull.

    What were they thinking?

    --
    What those who want activist courts fear is rule by the people.
  57. Only one lightsaber? by mattinjersey · · Score: 0

    I think it is pretty lame just to send up 1 lightsaber.
    That is no fun at all.

    Now if there were two lightsabers they could have some real battles!

  58. launch by __aahlyu4518 · · Score: 1

    In honor of the 30th anniversary of Star Wars, NASA will launch Luke Skywalker's original Jedi lightsaber into space along with the crew of the space shuttle Discovery.

    Hopefully this includes the space shuttle Discovery itself as well.

  59. Weapons in Space by mozzis · · Score: 0

    So now even NASA is putting weapons in space. When will the madness end?

    --
    This is not a self-referential sig.
  60. Scottty got shafted! by hanshotfirst · · Score: 1

    Scotty's ashes get the equivalent of a ride on the vomit comet and a movie prop gets the shuttle?!?

    Is JarJar running NASA now?

    --
    Why, oh why, didn't I take the Blue Pill?
    1. Re:Scottty got shafted! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Scotty's ashes were, uh, probably quite a bit heavier than the lightsaber.

  61. It's a good thing the TSA has no jurisdiction... by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 1
    It's a good thing the TSA has no jurisdiction over space travel, because I just can see an astronaut being busted for bringing a weapon aboard the shuttle...

    Oh, wait, they gonna check it in the cargo hold...

  62. Can a light saber cut through adamantium? Discuss by pangloss · · Score: 1

    An oldie but strangely, still topical in these circles.

  63. The real lightsaber - my prediction: by mikeasu · · Score: 1

    You know at NASA there's some SW geek who's thought this plan through.

    1.Get on the LLIS (Launch Lightsaber Into Space) Program
    2.Acquire or fabricate reasonable facsimile.
    3.Play switcheroo with copy and real one
    4.Watch as fake launched into space.
    5.Mount real lightsaber over headboard
    5a.(more likely) Mount real lightsaber over stairs leading to basement.

  64. Interpretation by Khammurabi · · Score: 1

    In honor of the 30th anniversary of Star Wars, NASA will launch Luke Skywalker's original Jedi lightsaber into space along with the crew of the space shuttle Discovery. ...
    Did anyone else interpret that as meaning that both the lightsaber and the crew would be fired into deep space?
    1. Re:Interpretation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was begining to think it was just me.

      Save money on the return trip??

    2. Re:Interpretation by BakaHoushi · · Score: 1

      I was thinking maybe NASA didn't think the crew was very good.

      Let me tell you, "You're fired" has a whole new meaning when you work for NASA.

  65. rtfa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you read the article, they're not throwing it out in space, just taking it up there and back.

  66. A Short List of Awesome Things Shot Into Space by Patrick+Cosmos · · Score: 1

    - Dog - Skylab - Philip J. Fry (in a dream on a cartoon) - Bender Bending Rodriguez (in real life on a cartoon) - A sword made out of a laser

    1. Re:A Short List of Awesome Things Shot Into Space by PlusFiveInsightful · · Score: 1

      You forgot about Walter Koenig's ashes.

  67. Transport not Eject by DaveP+in+Ohio · · Score: 1

    From the article, it is apparent that they are taking the lightsaber for a ride, not jettisoning it into space.

  68. No one was in baseball caps, either. by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    > NASA will launch Luke Skywalker's original Jedi lightsaber into space

    Note to Simpsons writers. Your sarcastic joke was not stupid enough:

    Buzz, on board the Space Shuttle, checking cargo: Children's letters to God, check!

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  69. SUPER AWESOME PUBLICITY STUNT GO!!! by jacklebot · · Score: 1

    Honestly, I blame the public. Our space program is boring, so NASA resorts to this stupid stuff just to remind people that we still HAVE a space program. The only way to stop this ridiculous stuff is to make the people appreciate the science and exploration that our space program does. In other words, until exploration and science is popular, NASA is going to continue to make a joke of itself with silly pranks like this.

  70. What, no mention of "Han Shoots First" yet???? by JJRRutgers · · Score: 1

    I tell ya, you folks are really start to dissapoint me.

  71. Dammit, NASA! by Kingrames · · Score: 1

    You KNOW you're not supposed to cross Star Trek with Star Wars!

    --
    If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
  72. *groan* by Cleon · · Score: 1

    It's good to see that NASA is focusing on what's important. Sure, the astronauts might be hitting the sauce a little hard, and every once in a while one goes bonkers and tries to kill someone. Yeah, maybe they still can't quite get a handle on that whole "make sure the Shuttle gets into space without suffering potentially catastrophic damage" bit, but you know--at least they can send a movie prop into space!

    Y'know...I'm as pro-space-exploration as the next geek. I really am. But sometimes I think someone needs to go to every individual member of NASA's board of directors, smack him or her upside the head, and yell "FOCUS!!!"

    --
    Gifts for Geeks - Stuff that really matters!
  73. Shoot it up.... by corifornia · · Score: 0

    They should shoot it up my ass, what a waste of existance. People actually sat in meetings discussing this.

    --
    crap.
  74. Safety by SnarfQuest · · Score: 1

    Are they going to remove its power supply, or at least put some safety trigger lock on it? I mean, if they aren't careful, they could burn a hold right through the shuttle with it!

    --
    Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
  75. WRONG! by rubycodez · · Score: 1

    those bullshit $400-500M are only counting costs over the last four years, taking the total cost of the space shuttle program it's over a BILLION DOLLARS per launch.

  76. Alpha Centari Scientists have now spent zillions.. by Timmy+D+Programmer · · Score: 1

    Trying to figure out how to activate the alien device they discovered in deep space 9 decades ago. Unfortunately they have failed to even identify which component is its power source, and what purpose the device serves.

    The Prime Minister of R&D Bleepblock Zubortsliivit is quoted as saying "Although we cannot actually see any working parts, it is clear that this is from an advance civilization, and when the time comes that we actually reverse engineer this technology it will take all of Glibbonkind to the next level of Gilbbon advancement!"

    --


    (If at first you don't succeed, do it different next time!)
  77. OFFS - they mean Anakin's lightsaber by justdrew · · Score: 1

    that was passed on to Luke...

  78. Won't anyone please think of the taxes? by sh3l1 · · Score: 1

    So this is where all the taxes are going.

    --
    Help Me! I'm trapped in the tubes! Oh noes! Here comes a internet!
  79. Holy shit! by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1
    Oh, wait.

    I initially thought they were going to eject the saber into space. That actually made my heart stop and I thought, "Wow! That's totally cool. Who would have thought back in the 70's when they were shooting Star Wars that the humble saber prop would one day be screaming endlessly around the planet faster than a rifle shot? In orbit, for goodness sake!" (Yeah, it was a thought quickly followed by, "Humans are kind of nuts," but it was nonetheless enough to stop me in my chair and made me grin.

    Then I discovered that they were just taking the prop for a ride and that it would safely be returned to the Lucasfilm vaults. Wouldn't want to lose an attachment to a piece of valuable stuff. Oh. Just a normal publicity stunt. No wow. Just calculated and corporate and Coca Cola Mac-boring.

    Ugh. Does anybody else find that they actually feel sort of gasse and bloated when exposed to corporate Happy Happy PR bullshit in the same way they do after eating corporate fast food? Or is it just me?


    -FL

  80. Eh, remember Starcraft in space?? by ColombianKid · · Score: 1
  81. The saber, and the crew too eh? by kannibul · · Score: 1

    Sounds like fun - where do I sign up?

    I'll finally be able to tell everyone exactly how long someone can live in space without a suit, what the weather is like and so on. :)

  82. Hoax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Star Wars was just an elaborate hoax created by the US Government. Luke never used the force or had a lightsaber. All of that was staged in a studio.

  83. Interesting by hitmanWilly1337 · · Score: 1

    But is his original hand still attached?

  84. They DID modify the moon to look like Death Star by swordfishBob · · Score: 1

    It happened last night. Unfortunately the effect only lasted a couple of hours.

    --
    -- All your bass are below two Hz
  85. 120 Flights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...and while you're at Wikipedia, you might also cruise on over the List of Human Spaceflights.

    Among the interesting things you may learn there and in the daughter links is that the space shuttle has flown almost four times as many missions as all other US manned programs combined. It's also 19 flights ahead of the Soyuz count (with the same number of fatal accidents, BTW), and a complete Soyuz TMA with crew could be carried in the cargo bay with room to spare and with a full complement of shuttle astronauts. You will probably also note that the Soviets were interested enough in the idea to further bankrupt themselves by building their own.

    In the end anyone should recognize that the shuttle was a compromise and could never be perfect. It was shockingly complicated, yet it also had some capabilities that are unmatched by any other vehicle, like its ability to return large cargo to earth, a 2000 mile cross-range landing capability, and its functionality as a large work platform, which has been utilized in building the ISS, servicing the Hubble, and numerous other missions. Heck, it's even the only launch vehicle capable of getting more than three people into orbit, and it can get them there with over 20 tonnes of cargo without requiring a second launch and a rendezvous.

    And it's beautiful to boot!

    The criticism is extensive, but it is also controversial. However, the shuttle has had it's time and we got some good use out of it.

  86. really /. worthy? by Dretep · · Score: 0

    Guess it does fall under the 'News for Nerds' part of the slogan cause it sure as hell ain't any 'Stuff that Matters'.