Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NASA To Send Luke's Lightsaber Into Space

Posted by kdawson on from the may-the-force-ahh-never-mind dept.

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."

44 of 290 comments (clear)

  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 sircastor · · Score: 5, Funny

      the whole series is really about him but noooo.... NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
    2. 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.
    3. Re:Fired by Simian+Road · · Score: 2, Funny

      Do not want!!!!!

      (If you get that, I'll give you a 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 everphilski · · Score: 2, Funny

      Word, bitch, Phantoms like a mallfucker!

  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 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Re:Glad to see... by PJ1216 · · Score: 2, Funny

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

    9. 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.
    10. Re:Glad to see... by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 2, Funny

      Always start with wikipedia..
      ...but please, never stop there.
      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    11. 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?

  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 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.
    2. 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.

      --
      libguestfs - tools for accessing and modifying virtual machine disk images
  5. 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.

  6. 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 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.

    3. 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.
    4. 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.
  7. 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!

  8. 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.
  9. 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 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.
  10. 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!
  11. 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.

  12. 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.
  13. Re:Um by RuBLed · · Score: 5, Funny

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


    from the toilet?
  14. 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!

  15. 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.

  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. 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

  19. 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
  20. 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
  21. 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/