×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Meet the 23-Ton X-Wing, the World's Largest Lego Model

samzenpus posted about a year ago | from the stay-on-target dept.

Star Wars Prequels 121

First time accepted submitter awaissoft writes "There's big, then there's really big, and then there's colossal, which might be a good word to use when describing a near 46,000-pound Lego X-Wing that made a triumphant debut Thursday in New York's Times Square. The full-size replica, about 42 times the size of the Lego Star Wars X-Wing set available on store shelves, celebrates the debut of Cartoon Network's The Yoda Chronicles, which premieres on May 29 at 8 p.m. It took a small army of 32 Lego master builders, housed in a facility in the Czech Republic, to build the 45,980-pound, or 23-ton, Lego ship. It stands 11 feet high and 43 feet long, and contains more than 5 million Lego pieces."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

121 comments

Problem (5, Funny)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year ago | (#43808675)

The wings don't lock into the attack position. My nerd rage knows no bounds.

Re:Problem (4, Funny)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about a year ago | (#43808869)

wings

I think you mean S-foils [wikia.com].

You can turn in your nerd card at the door.

Re:Problem (5, Interesting)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year ago | (#43809033)

I think you mean S-foils.You can turn in your nerd card at the door.

"S-foils, also known as Strike foils or Stability foils, and on occasion as X-foils,[1] were movable wings..."

You can turn in your engineering card at the door.

Re:Problem (3, Insightful)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about a year ago | (#43809081)

Yes, everybody knows they're wings (that's somewhat inherent in X-Wing).

Nerds call them S-foils.

Re:Problem (2)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year ago | (#43809151)

Nerds call them S-foils.

Maybe starwars nerds have no problem with the wide assortment of whimisically named technology in the movies, but engineering nerds like myself are somewhat annoyed by the totally counterintuitive and useless name of 's-foil', which only a starwars nerd would recognize. For the rest of the world, the engineering term wings are a better description. Of course, in about 30 seconds, my computer's going to catch fire and begin vomitting angry noises as it's assaulted by millions of angry Lucas-lovers beating their star wars technical manuals and screaming, but hey. My nerdiness is no less valid than theirs...

And I say they're WINGS.

Re:Problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43809193)

And I say they're WINGS.

They would be wings if their purpose was the generation of lift. It's not, so they're not.

Re:Problem (1)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year ago | (#43809251)

They would be wings if their purpose was the generation of lift. It's not, so they're not.

So during the Battle of Hoth when they were seen in atmospheric flight... they were purely ornamental?

Re:Problem (5, Funny)

Dahamma (304068) | about a year ago | (#43809777)

So during the Battle of Hoth when they were seen in atmospheric flight... they were purely ornamental?

Since they (along with most other spacefaring ships) were shown taking off and landing vertically, yeah, pretty much. Actually, the silly canonical explanation is they were for heat dissipation and "stabilization", just like the TIE fighter's "radiators" (which are clearly useless as airfoils).

Though given this thread is arguing engineering principles in one of the most unscientific major sci-fi series in recent history, I think we can all safely claim various levels of pathetic nerddom. Sigh.

Re:Problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43810875)

repeat after me : 'NOT SF'

Re:Problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43811381)

They would be wings if their purpose was the generation of lift. It's not, so they're not.

So during the Battle of Hoth when they were seen in atmospheric flight... they were purely ornamental?

Just shut up dude!

Re:Problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43809241)

After hearing Han describe the Kessel run it's hard to believe any science or engineering principles are allowed in the mythology.

Re:Problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43809279)

wasnt the original term "standard time units" and was changed for the movie? but the unit of distance used has been weasled into explanations like this "he could navigate the kessel run, full of asteroids and other obstacles so well his total distance was the specified number of parsecs". like religious interpretations: ad-hoc and meaningless. picard pwns kirk and even kirk uses sand and cheez-whiz for lube on star trek

Re:Problem (1)

Intropy (2009018) | about a year ago | (#43810159)

Yeah that's something like the retcon they went with. Lucas has said that the original intent there was for Han to spout fancy-sounding nonsense and Obi Wan to catch him at it. There was no explicit dialog of Obi Wan calling him out, we were just supposed to be able to tell from the actors' expressions. The idea was to further set up Han as this con man type figure and also show that Obi Wan is pretty worldly himself. Unfortunately bad directorial choices about cutting between cameras ruined the effect.

Re:Problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43810867)

What? there is no KY in the future?

(for the US-mentally-bound, I don't mean the state of Kentucky)

Re:Problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43812049)

Actually, it's correct, he describes making a run in "less than 5 parsecs" which is a unit of distance.

See, the "Kessel Run" is a dangerous path to the broken planet of Kessel, there are many black holes and other celestial phenomena that forces pilots to take a very roundabout path, so Han was bragging that he chose a very short path, inherently much more dangerous than a slower, "longer" pilot.

Re:Problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43810639)

Which proves again that loserboy nerds are turdbrained. If they're not wings but S-foils, WHY ON FUCKING DANTOOINE ISN'T THE THING CALLED AN X-S-FOIL FIGHTER???

Re:Problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43810869)

And what about the Y-Wing, the A-Wing?...and don't get me started on the B-Wing for that matter

Re:Problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43809259)

You can turn in your geek card at the door.

FTFY. Now hand it over. You (plural) must be new here. Where are we going to stash all of these things?

Re:Problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43810811)

wrong. It's star wars. who cares ??? Star wars is for children !

Re:Problem (2, Funny)

Xest (935314) | about a year ago | (#43810331)

This has totally turned from humour into an actual nerd fight.

I'll get the popcorn.

Re:Problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43810839)

it's about star wars. That's nothing geeky.

Re: Problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43809079)

Wow, I can feel the burn from here.

Re:Problem (1)

Joce640k (829181) | about a year ago | (#43810821)

wings

I think you mean S-foils [wikia.com].

You can turn in your nerd card at the door.

Logic 101:

All S-foils are wings. Not all wings are S-foils.

The clue is in the name "X-wing".

Re:Problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43811203)

Um, S-soils are wings, hence X-WING. You're the one who shouldn't have a nerd card.

Glue (1)

GrahamCox (741991) | about a year ago | (#43808677)

I bet it's glued together - no Lego model that heavy could support its own weight. Cheat!

Re:Glue (5, Funny)

kcmastrpc (2818817) | about a year ago | (#43808697)

nonsense. the force is holding this one together.

Re:Glue (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43808881)

ya metallic bond of metal skeleton

Re:Glue (1)

Smauler (915644) | about a year ago | (#43809835)

Weighs 45,979.61 pounds (including bricks and steel infrastructure)

I don't think glue would cut it with something this size, and the loads it needs.

Re:Glue (1)

Joce640k (829181) | about a year ago | (#43810829)

Never mind that, I want to know who has enough money to buy 22 tons of LEGO. That stuff's more expensive than gold.

Re:Glue (2)

Misagon (1135) | about a year ago | (#43811771)

From what I have hard, the Lego model makers use solvent to chemically weld the pieces together.

When they can get a legal permit, they use GBL [wikipedia.org] -- which unfortunately would turn into the drug GHB when you add water. Otherwise they use MEK [wikipedia.org]. GBL is believed by Lego to be less toxic than MEK. (Well.. you are not supposed to drink either, so this is about skin contact and fumes.)

Seems legit. . . (0)

mosb1000 (710161) | about a year ago | (#43808729)

I'm sure this is a real thing someone actually did and not just a poor photoshop someone did to try to increase the traffic to their blog.

Re:Seems legit. . . (4, Interesting)

mooingyak (720677) | about a year ago | (#43808783)

It's in Times Square. Not exactly an obscure location.

Also, totally visible from my desk, which for once made having offices in Times Square not suck.

Re:Seems legit. . . (1)

mosb1000 (710161) | about a year ago | (#43808837)

Then may I suggest links to some legitimate press coverage, rather than a link to an obscure blog no one goes to with a low resolution photo?

Re:Seems legit. . . (5, Informative)

mooingyak (720677) | about a year ago | (#43808861)

Dunno what counts for you, but here's a few:

Cnet [cnet.com]

gizmodo [gizmodo.com]

Starwars.com [starwars.com]

Re:Seems legit. . . (3, Informative)

mosb1000 (710161) | about a year ago | (#43808883)

Yeah, I already googled it. I feel like an idiot.

Re:Seems legit. . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43810881)

Well, if it's any consolation, I too looked at the blog image and said to myself "That looks like a really bad Photoshop, and why just a single image with no close-ups?" Then I googled and found better images from more convincing sources.

Re:Seems legit. . . (1)

hcs_$reboot (1536101) | about a year ago | (#43811005)

Yes but the picture is what pros would call a bad picture [cbsistatic.com]: to give a relative idea of the height / width of the thing, they should have included a man for instance into he picture..

Re:Seems legit. . . (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43808985)

It's in Times Square. Not exactly an obscure location.

Also, totally visible from my desk, which for once made having offices in Times Square not suck.

You have a job where you can see times square from your desk and you say it sucks? I would trade your view for mine of a black topped parking lot and a building on the other side of it for yours any day of the week, so would millions of others who don't get to see times square of all places.

You need to appreciate what you have.

Re:Seems legit. . . (2)

mooingyak (720677) | about a year ago | (#43809037)

You have a job where you can see times square from your desk and you say it sucks? I would trade your view for mine of a black topped parking lot and a building on the other side of it for yours any day of the week, so would millions of others who don't get to see times square of all places.

You need to appreciate what you have.

And you what you have. I would take you up on that trade in a heartbeat.

The only plus is that I moved to the opposite side of the building so I'm not facing the giant flashing Nasdaq billboard all day long. There are flashing lights everywhere, it's very crowded, and the food is mediocre and expensive. I've worked in a few different parts of Manhattan and this is by far the shittiest.

Re:Seems legit. . . (1)

camperdave (969942) | about a year ago | (#43809195)

It's in Times Square. Not exactly an obscure location.

Also, totally visible from my desk, which for once made having offices in Times Square not suck.

You have a job where you can see times square from your desk and you say it sucks? I would trade your view for mine of a black topped parking lot and a building on the other side of it for yours any day of the week, so would millions of others who don't get to see times square of all places.

You need to appreciate what you have.

Lucky! The pair of ye. The only view I have is from whatever webcam I happen to browse to.

Re:Seems legit. . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43809375)

The only view I have is of a computer monitor, a TV, a couch, and a fridge. Wouldn't trade it for the world!

Re:Seems legit. . . (1)

LBt1st (709520) | about a year ago | (#43810101)

You guys get to look out windows?

Re:Seems legit. . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43810623)

YOU CAN LOOK????

When I were a lad, we were thrashed within an inch of our lives if we wasted time LOOKING at work, then our manager would stab us to death and dance a merry jig on our graves before cashing in some stock options.

Re:Seems legit. . . (1)

Zakabog (603757) | about a year ago | (#43809293)

I work near Penn Station and it's pretty terrible but not nearly as bad asTimes Square. The obnoxious lights, the swarms of tourists, the constant noise. I know a few people who work overlooking Times Square and while it's a nice place to visit, you wouldn't want to deal with that every day. Plus to top it all off, everything around there is a tourist trap. There's practically no good food around (it's almost all chains since not many small places can afford the rent) and all of the prices are ridiculously jacked up. The best offices I've seen are around Chelsea and the West Village, and any place that overlooks the park.

Re:Seems legit. . . (1)

Simon Brooke (45012) | about a year ago | (#43810941)

All I can see from my window is a flower-strewn meadow, a hill, a forest, a wind turbine, an orchard. And it's all mine.

Times Square? Black-top parking lot? You can keep them.

Re:Seems legit. . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43811449)

Hello, this is the government. We're taking your land with adverse possession. We've given you fair market value though for your troubles, which is whatever we deem to be fair. Thank you.

Re:Seems legit. . . (1)

Misagon (1135) | about a year ago | (#43811807)

It is made from large Lego bricks ... made from Lego bricks.

I also thought that the picture in the article was photoshopped, until I saw close-up pictures of each "brick" being jagged.

A bit blocky (1)

michaelmalak (91262) | about a year ago | (#43808751)

Looks blocky, like they were modeling after a small Lego model kit rather than an X-Wing as portray in the movies.

Re:A bit blocky (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43808805)

That is exactly what they did. It is a scaled up model of Lego set 9493. Too bad it wasn't the UCS that came out this year....

Re:A bit blocky (2)

LBt1st (709520) | about a year ago | (#43810103)

I was disappointed by this as well. It's more like a replica of a replica. I was hoping they made something more detailed.

How much did Disney pay? (2, Funny)

msobkow (48369) | about a year ago | (#43808777)

How much did Disney pay for this blatant slashvertisement?

Re:How much did Disney pay? (2)

ThePeices (635180) | about a year ago | (#43808987)

How much did Disney pay for this blatant slashvertisement?

Disney paid $0.00

Lego X-Wing models are nerdy enough to warrant mention on Slashdot.

Sorry if this doesnt fit into your conspiracy theory way of thinking, but thems the breaks.

Re:How much did Disney pay? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43809053)

They built an X-Wing (model) out of Legos. Shut your fucking face and let the rest of us enjoy it.

Re:How much did Disney pay? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43810199)

i am not a fan of star wars.. but this is fucking awesome. wish i lived closer so i could see it in person.

Re:How much did Disney pay? (1)

chrismcb (983081) | about a year ago | (#43810477)

Huh?
Isn't this "news for nerds?"
Don't nerds like legos AND Star Wars?
Wouldn't nerds want to know about the world's largest lego replica?
Why does everything have to be a "slashvertisement?"

Re:How much did Disney pay? (2)

cinky (2632165) | about a year ago | (#43810565)

Let me explain to you how this works: you see, the corporations finance Slashdot, and then Slashdot goes out... and the corporations sit there in their... in their corporation buildings, and... and, and see, they're all corporation-y... and they make money.

That's not the explanation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43810937)

This isn't a "Corporations are ebil" rant from the OP, this is a "I'm so smart, I can see what you can't, you morons" rant.

Re:How much did Disney pay? (1)

polar red (215081) | about a year ago | (#43810859)

Don't nerds like legos AND Star Wars?

I *DON'T* like star wars. It's not SF, it's barely fantasy. it has a paper-thin plot. The only thing it's got going for it is the FX.

Re:How much did Disney pay? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43811545)

Well aren't you the most special nerd at convention.

Link to a real website. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43808781)

This is quite possibly the most pointless blogspam ever. At least provide a link to a reputable outlet [wired.com].

What a waste except to those who built it (1)

Trax3001BBS (2368736) | about a year ago | (#43808795)

As mentioned it's been glued or a metal substructure. At 23 tons it's no easy piece
to move; displaying it will always be an effort and great expense. I see it being
very easy to break (not being involved in it's construction) as it has a large
unsupported extension.

Not wishing to offend those who enjoyed building it I'm sure, but what's to become of it.
Only place it could go would be to a Lego museum and LO I find there's one in the planning
http://www.salon.com/2013/03/24/danish_architecture_firm_tapped_to_design_worlds_first_lego_museum_partner/ [salon.com]

This pathetic blog link got greenlit? (5, Informative)

l0ungeb0y (442022) | about a year ago | (#43808851)

Seems the editors couldn't figure out submitter "awaisoft" is a pissant blogger on the awaisoft.com domain
There have been many articles about this around the Net today, and o fall of them, this one is by far the worst.
For fuck sake, the entire blog posting was copied and pasted verbatim into the summary.

Here's a real article over at PopSci with many pictures, a video and a good many more words about the project and what went into it.
http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2013-05/world%E2%80%99s-largest-lego-model-life-size-x-wing-video [popsci.com]

Re:This pathetic blog link got greenlit? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43808945)

Your link doesn't work.

Re:This pathetic blog link got greenlit? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43808999)

yes, it does

Re:This pathetic blog link got greenlit? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43809167)

no, it doesn't

Re:This pathetic blog link got greenlit? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43809561)

yes it doesn't

Re:This pathetic blog link got greenlit? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43810073)

It goes to an ad, which might be viewed as "not working" given the world's attention span.

This is why I read slashdot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43810369)

The "editors" bring the topics, and the comments provide the actual information. If you want it the other way around, Ars Technica is good. Slashdot is crowdsourcing of a sort, and in this sense works really well...

Re:This pathetic blog link got greenlit? (1)

Big Hairy Ian (1155547) | about a year ago | (#43810439)

Absolutely. I don't know what everyone's geekasming about its a scale model of a much smaller lego model. Now if they'd based on the Hays X-Wing manual then I'd be interested :D

Re:This pathetic blog link got greenlit? (1)

msobkow (48369) | about a year ago | (#43811195)

Now that's an article that doesn't slashvertise Disney's new show. It's informative, focuses on the Lego company instead of Disney, and was an enjoyable read.

I've got a bad feeling about this. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43808875)

Not going to bullseye any womp rats in this.

Scaled up, not full sized (1)

Chuckstar (799005) | about a year ago | (#43809121)

It's actually not a full-sized X-wing, but a scaled up Lego X-wing, with the little bumps of the Lego blocks and all.

Frankly, I think it's actually more fun this way than if it were a full-scale replica out of Lego. There's something "meta" about building a big Lego piece out of smaller Lego pieces.

Re:Scaled up, not full sized (2)

camperdave (969942) | about a year ago | (#43809203)

It's actually not a full-sized X-wing, but a scaled up Lego X-wing, with the little bumps of the Lego blocks and all.

Frankly, I think it's actually more fun this way than if it were a full-scale replica out of Lego. There's something "meta" about building a big Lego piece out of smaller Lego pieces.

Yeah, except I can't find a white 4 block anywhere. Someone's used them all.

Biggest LEGO model, nah. (2)

batwingTM (202524) | about a year ago | (#43809455)

This is pretty awesome, but Largest LEGO model, no way
LEGO House [flickr.com]

Re:Biggest LEGO model, nah. (2)

Ol Biscuitbarrel (1859702) | about a year ago | (#43809613)

Actual sense of scale here: House Built From LEGO [thecontaminated.com] Helps that it had a flat roof and mostly bare walls on its breadbox shape. But still that's a heckuva lot of bricks that went into the thing.

Re:Biggest LEGO model, nah. (1)

Smauler (915644) | about a year ago | (#43809903)

It's been knocked down now - there was no planning permission for the house, and they could not find someone who would pay 50,000 pounds to get it anywhere.

Seems a shame, really... you'd have thought some rich bastard would have taken it.

When it's time to take it apart... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43809849)

They should auction off the rights for one person to destroy it. Oh man. Can you imagine being 8 years old again and being allowed to thrash and kick that thing? Pure joy.

It's rediculous (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43810231)

seriously

Macrostructures and legolike bricks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43810303)

I think this has been mentioned elsewhere, but if you could design a remote lego-brick-making-from-local-materials-and-then-lego-stacking robotic device or devices, & then drop the system off somewhere (Mars, the moon, etc.) in No Time At All (O.K., a year, five years, etc.) you could build a moderate-sized shelter complex. Really, the small size of the bricks just allows you to add more architectural detail, and the small size of the bricks also might = smaller robotic devices to build your moon pyramid. We're already printing buildings, so I guess my point is that the size of the brick is immaterial if you aren't in a huge hurry.
Could something like this robotic device be built and flown? If you know the destination's soil composition, have access to power (and water), yes, probably.
Worth doing? Depends. Enough devices like this and you could prebuild arcologies (or monuments to your bad self) all over the solar system without ever leaving home.

Crappy photo (1)

polyp2000 (444682) | about a year ago | (#43810985)

Why does everything these days have to be photographed with that shitty instagram 70's polaroid look ? its not cool ! Bring back decent photography pleas - i want to see some detail on that X-wing

Obviously (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43811077)

It will never fly.

{^_-}

F-35 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43811147)

Great! Now have these masters build the F-35 so that it can be delivered this millennia.

Where in Times Square? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43811239)

I work near Bryant Park and would love to take a walk over and see it if I can find out its exact location. It must be indoors somewhere there, it rained cats and dogs in midtown Manhattan yesterday.

Crappy Antialiasing (4, Funny)

VorpalRodent (964940) | about a year ago | (#43811417)

Let me just say that they are doing a horrible job at antialiasing. I looked at those pictures, and there's jaggies all over.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...