Anything for a publicity stunt, eh? I'd like to see them fly the original Enterprise model into space, next.
Mark
Posted by Josh (Member # 1884) on :
Re - fucking - tarded.
I don't want to even imagine how much money they are shitting away on that which would be better spent on some charity.
Honestly, I'm a Star Wars junkie, but the idea of spending millions of dollars to put a flash attachment to a camera in space just pisses me off.
Obviously it's not the only reason they are going up in space, but it still seems stupid to me.
Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
Double-You-Tee-Eff.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Well at the moment NASA needs al the publicity it can get and considering the prop can't weigh that much and is pretty small, I doubt it's costing them anything extra to take it along.
Posted by B.J. (Member # 858) on :
I think the current estimate (as it has been for years) is about $1000 per pound to get something into orbit. Considering how little this actually weighs, I bet its cost washes out somewhere with the weight tolerances on everything else.
quote:Honestly, I'm a Star Wars junkie, but the idea of spending millions of dollars to put a flash attachment to a camera in space just pisses me off.
What are you talking about? The primary mission here is to deliver another piece of the Space Station.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
What they really need to do for a publicity stunt is to send up the original full-size prop & sets of the Millennium Falcon into orbit and assemble it there. Wouldn't that just be fucking cool to have the real Millennium Falcon in orbit around Earth?! Posted by Josh (Member # 1884) on :
I'm referring to the cost of the publicity stunt. Seems kind of dumb to me, but I think I'm overreacting. Was in a bad mood last night.
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
The old rule of thumb is that anything literally costs its weight in gold to lift into orbit with the shuttle. What I want to know is what they intend to do IN orbit with the thing. What if they brought up a couple of those toy sabers with the light up blades and have at it? If only they had enough space for some Skylab-esque acrobatics...
Mark
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
quote:Originally posted by Josh: I'm referring to the cost of the publicity stunt. Seems kind of dumb to me, but I think I'm overreacting. Was in a bad mood last night.
Yeah I thought it was kinda dumb too, what with the crazy astronauts in adult diapers and going into space drunk.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by B.J.: I think the current estimate (as it has been for years) is about $1000 per pound to get something into orbit. Considering how little this actually weighs, I bet its cost washes out somewhere with the weight tolerances on everything else.
quote:Honestly, I'm a Star Wars junkie, but the idea of spending millions of dollars to put a flash attachment to a camera in space just pisses me off.
What are you talking about? The primary mission here is to deliver another piece of the Space Station.
Um...it's TEN thousand per pound. That silly prop weighs at least a pound. At pennies per meal from a relief organization, that's a lot of people that could've been helped instead of some silly stunt. Maybe they'll survive on the Force. Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
I hardly think NASA's budget comes from any relief organization's pocket. They probably spent as much when they shipped a bunch of DVDs up to the ISS (including Firefly, apparently) or whenever they take anything that isn't mission critical. The difference is you never hear about that stuff.
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
Indeed. Back in the 80s and 90s, there were HUGE projects where NASA was trying to develop technologies with the stated goal of REDUCING the cost per pound to about $1000, one tenth of what it is now. They ALL failed. Even the next generation Orion vehicle won't reduce the costs that much.
Mark
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Yeah, I'm just saying, between budget cuts and the long line of serious scientific projects that are waiting for funding, this is pretty silly. The 'ol "children starving in Africa" gag is just to point out the waste, not to suggest they actually give anything away.
As to stuff lke DVD's- that's all crew morale and obvious stress relief- very lightweight too. Posted by Fabrux (Member # 71) on :
Cause really, the ISS's internet connection SUCKS.
Posted by The Ginger Beacon (Member # 1585) on :
That and I imagine the urge to procrasturbate in space is probably curtailed. Or at the very least frowned upon by NASA. Probably the Russians too.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)