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.
Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
Saltah'na
Chinese Canadian, or 75% Commie Bastard.
Member # 33
posted
Double-You-Tee-Eff.
-------------------- "And slowly, you come to realize, it's all as it should be, you can only do so much. If you're game enough, you could place your trust in me. For the love of life, there's a tradeoff, we could lose it all but we'll go down fighting...." - David Sylvian FreeSpace 2, the greatest space sim of all time, now remastered!
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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
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.
Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
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?!
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
posted
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...
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.
Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
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.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
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
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.
posted
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.
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
-------------------- I have plenty of experience in biology. I bought a Tamagotchi in 1998... And... it's still alive.
Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
