Russian Supply Ship Docks At ISS 196
CryptoJoe writes "Space.com and CNN report a successful docking between the Russian-built cargo ship Progress 16 and the International Space Station (ISS). NASA had indicated that a failure of Progress 16 would lead to the evacuation of the ISS because food supplies are critically low."
The truth (Score:4, Funny)
Re:The truth (Score:2, Funny)
Priorities (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Priorities (Score:2, Insightful)
.
Re:Priorities (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you talking about the ISS or are you talking about the space shuttle?
Because the critical design flaw in the space shuttle, which has resulted in the grounding of the fleet, was NOT part of the plan.
But in the real world you overcome problems when they occur. If everyone always gave up and moved on to "other needs" at the slightest hickup, we would always be moving on the other needs without ever satisfying any of them.
Space travel is dangerous. No one is putting a gun to those astronauts' heads.
Please, please (Score:1, Funny)
1. Accuse someone of making a stupid comment.
2. Commit errors in spelling, punctuation and sentence structure to the point where it impedes understanding of your comments.
It would be preferable if you did neither of these things when posting. However if you absolutely must do one then please refrain from doing the other.
Re:Priorities (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Priorities (Score:2)
I'm not a fellow scientist, and I sure do find it sad.
Re:Priorities (Score:3, Interesting)
This never happened before in humanity's recorded history :-)
And besides, how do you apply the word "correctly" to the art of spaceflight? There is no single correct way to do things. There is no even a single correct way to cross the street, as far as I know. If you require perfection then I guess you should remain dirtside until some [supposedly] benevolent extraterrestrials, like Qax [york.ac.uk], offer you a free ride in one of their ships. Anything else invol
Man... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Man... (Score:2, Insightful)
Just be grateful Michael isn't editing today! (Score:1, Funny)
Re:Man... (Score:5, Funny)
Source [reuters.com]:
"Russian officials accused the previous crew of overeating during their 6-month mission, leaving a deficit of meat and milk and a surplus of juice and confectionery."
Re:Man... (Score:2)
Re:Man... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Man... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Man... (Score:2)
Not to sound like an ass (Score:5, Interesting)
Every detail/mission about the ISS is planned from start to finish. Including food stocks. Was there not a red flag somewhere that said "okay, we are going to be there for x days but have y amount of food?" No stays are "overextended" moreso that their food stores should be able to cover them in the event they can't make it back to earth (weather or other prohibiting factors)
Sure they've remedy'd it now but I'm scared at what could go wrong with something like a Mars mission where you can't just send up a supply ship...
Re:Not to sound like an ass (Score:4, Insightful)
nasa grounded all shuttle flights if you remember, and relied on the russians to send things up there.
Re:Not to sound like an ass (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Not to sound like an ass (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Not to sound like an ass (Score:3, Insightful)
That's like saying you should turn around and go home because you see traffic stopped 2 miles ahead.
They knew how much food they had. They still had some left when the supply ship docked. Ergo, it wasn't an emergency that required evacuating the station.
I mean, what would have happened if the Russian Supply Ship (god forbid) went down?
My guess is that they'd do whatever it is they need to do to make sure the thing doesn't fall apar
Re:Not to sound like an ass (Score:2)
I don't follow ISS that closely but if it's anything like Mir, the gyros fail periodically, and need to be replaced. If the station had to be abandoned for a REALLY long time, it could end up tumbling, which makes docking pretty hard, and can damage t
Re:Not to sound like an ass (Score:2)
The station is supposed to be able to maintain its orientation with 2 gyros in operation using minimal thrusters.
Re:Not to sound like an ass (Score:2)
I wonder how long you could use the rocket thrusters to maintain proper orientation of the station.
I hope they aren't using the same gyros Mir did. :)
Re:Not to sound like an ass (Score:2)
That would really depend on how much fuel they have stored on the station at any given point in time. I'm going to guess at a minimum they have enough to maintain the station's orientation long enough to evacuate the crew, but more likely I would guess that there is enough fuel kept on board to maintain the orientation long enough for an emergency repair to occur.
I hope they aren't using the same gyros Mi
Re:Not to sound like an ass (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, you don't sound like an ass at all. It's a good question.
Yes, things are planned to great detail on ISS. However, the devil is always in the details. Assumptions are made (sometimes over a year in advance)on how much the crew eats, when resupply comes up, when the shuttle is going to fly, and how to parcel out limited upmass between food, water, and spare parts, etc. It's tough when you only have Progress for resupply. This time, we got bit.
And yeah, we gotta figure this sort of stuff out before we can go to Mars. Which ISS is useful for. Forgetting about the pure science for a moment (which a lot of folks question), ISS is a great engineering platform for how (or how not) to build things and manage humans in space. And we're learning from it.
As time goes on, NASA is going to try to make ISS more automatic and less dependent on the ground. NASA is going to try to wring out hardware that could be used on the way to Mars in an environment on ISS where a breakdown won't lead to death of the crew. And NASA is going to try to find flaws in logistics and planning (like this) and not allow it to happen where the stakes are higher.
Re:Not to sound like an ass (Score:1)
Re:Not to sound like an ass (Score:2)
And unless you have a personal AIM link to George Bush and/or Sean O'Keefe, good luck buddy.
Re:Not to sound like an ass (Score:5, Interesting)
The Moon is not colonized because nobody was willing to pay for it. There are many places on Earth that are not colonized, and still are more comfortable to live in than Moon. Look at most of Canada, for example :-)
The whole Moon exercise was only a competition between two countries. Once the finish line was crossed, it became apparent that there is nothing for humans on the Moon.
With regard to "far simpler than ISS", you must be joking. Launch to LEO lasts 10 minutes; flight to the Moon takes three days. If your oxygen fails on LEO (or if you run out of food) you simply fire the engine and descend, even ballistically if need be; if anything fails on the way to the Moon, or while there, your chances of survival are minimal.
A colony on the Moon is not practical now simply because there is nothing for colonists to do there. We do not have skintight spacesuits, we do not have portable fusion batteries, we don't have anything that would help the colony there. Imagine 10 people dumped on the surface, maybe with a portable tent. What are they going to do there? You can give them only so much of supplies, and what happens after they run out?
A proper colony needs to build the base first, and for that they need very good tunneling equipment, sealants and plenty of machinery like airlocks. They need a source of energy, and nothing short of nuclear will do. They need a source of oxygen and water, and though that can be mined, they need to be given tools for such mining (some robots, most likely.) We are talking about hundreds (if not thousands) of tons of materials and supplies just to get started. Today's technology can deliver maybe half a ton, maybe more - but we are still two orders of magnitude below what's needed, and we don't have the payload anyway (where are those robots who would be mining the rocks for He(3) ?)
So ISS is something that we can do, here and now. It is relatively safe, uses technology that is within our reach, and allows us to build and test new devices and new methods. Colonization of other planets will become possible only after some major advances in technology, primarily in propulsion and then in robotics. You just can not colonize a hostile world without robots, and our existing robots are not even close to what is needed.
Funny reasoning here (Score:2, Interesting)
Let's not forget that the sole reason why ANYONE is still up there is because Russians have more reliable transport spacecraft.
"NASA is going to try, blah blah blah..." Try to fix your shuttle program first, then move on to Mars program. Until then, outsourse the Mars program to Russia. They've already done much of the "isolated ecosystem" work, here on Earth.
Re:Not to sound like an ass (Score:2)
So whadda ya say there pal?
Re:Not to sound like an ass (Score:2)
More accurate headline (Score:5, Funny)
Re:More accurate headline (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:More accurate headline (Score:3, Funny)
That is one of the most inhuman war stories I've ever heard. A moment of silence for their tastebuds......
Re:More accurate headline (Score:2)
Having not understood the difference between pudding, and Christmas pudding....
Russian-built? (Score:1)
Russian-built? What does that mean? It was built by Russians but was designed by someone else? Assembled in Russia from imported parts?
I don't get it.
Re:Russian-built? (Score:2)
It means that the Russians built it with 1/2 to 1/3 of the manhours that it would have taken in America, for 1/20 to 1/30 the price that it would have taken in America, and probably is a lot simpler and overall more reliable than it would have been if had been if it had been designed and built in America.
They could learn from Japan's 7-11 (Score:1)
Cool system, maybe Nasa could learn something from them.
Re:They could learn from Japan's 7-11 (Score:1)
Re:They could learn from Japan's 7-11 (Score:2, Funny)
Temperature: Unknown
Pressure: 0
Humidity: Divide by Zero Error!
It'd probably freak out and order shuttles full of vodka.
Re:They could learn from Japan's 7-11 (Score:2, Funny)
And the problem with that is.... ;-)
Embarrassment for the US (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Embarrassment for the US (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Embarrassment for the US (Score:2)
Re:Embarrassment for the US (Score:2)
I can't speak for the above poster, but I think the comment isn't meant to be critical of Russia, but of the American space program. We have a much stronger economy than Russia but our space program has, in many practical ways, decayed even more than Russia's program since the cold war.
That really *is* embarassing, and it'
Re:Merry Christmas? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Merry Christmas? (Score:1, Interesting)
Getting to the moon quickly was done years ago. The trick is to develop space based technologies that allow people to do more than just take some photos, grab a few rocks and have a quick game of golf.
Re:Merry Christmas? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Merry Christmas? (Score:2)
Re:Merry Christmas? (Score:2)
Re:Merry Christmas? (Score:3, Funny)
You don't understand the real purpose of the space station - it is there to have a real pair of human eyeballs watching for a missile launch. It is a final confirmation for the super powers that somebody is up to no-good, before they launch a counter strike and kill millions. The scientific stuff is secondary and to keep the guys from getting bored out of their skulls.
Re:Merry Christmas? (Score:2)
Re:Merry Christmas? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Merry Christmas? (Score:2)
Use one of those orbit tracking programs or websites and see for yourself how small the area of the earth is that is visible at one time from the space station.
It will take 100 minutes to see a band-shaped area of the world, and several hours to see everything.
"Government doesn't create wealth". (Score:5, Interesting)
ResearchCo solicits investment from the public. ResearchCo develops Velcro with this money. Velcro is then marketed and sold to the public, with a portion of the costs paid back to the investors.
NASA taxes the public. NASA develops Velcro with this money. Velcro is then marketed and sold to the public; however, there are no licensing fees, so the cost is equivalent to (in the first example) the cost of ResearchCo velcro less the costs paid back to the investors.
No, they're not precisely equivalent cases, but the flow of things is the same. Why the difference? Can you explain it to me?
--grendel drago
Re:"Government doesn't create wealth". (Score:1, Interesting)
Since what you are dealing with is a distraction tactic (don't worry about all that bad stuff happening over there! focus on the government and the government only!) masquerading as a political philosophy, you shouldn't really bother tryin
Re:"Government doesn't create wealth". (Score:2, Interesting)
Now, the concept behind taxation is that you get something for your money. What have you gotten? I ha
Re:"Government doesn't create wealth". (Score:1, Interesting)
Faced with an accusation that libertarianism excessively relies on demonizing the government to distract people from other things, the response is a long speech about how evil the government is. This speech doesn't really respond to anything said; it just distracts by demonizing the government.
Demonizing or attacking the government may be justified. But does that mean that demonizing the government is the only
Re:"Government doesn't create wealth". (Score:2)
However, it is a place to start. The government was created to protect rights (read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution if you don't believe me), and not to be a "nanny" for society and cure society's ills. The government is supposed to provide a framework of protection whereby society is free to cure its own ills!
Libertarians say this: we have this government, a
Re:"Government doesn't create wealth". (Score:2)
Government regulations in commerce do not "secure" commerce - they hinder it. That you think the government needs to secure and regulate commerce only show
Re:"Government doesn't create wealth". (Score:2)
If public roads are used by everyone, and I am paying for them with taxes, why are there tolls?
You are right that eventually the populace pays for things - but why not make it things that the populace wants? I'm not saying that the populace doesn't want roads... what I am saying is that I pay my taxes, and then $6 in bridge tolls (I live in NY), and invariably, the roads are in the poorest condition! You can always tell when you leave New York and get into Connectic
Re:"Government doesn't create wealth". (Score:2)
I make a little over $50,000 per year, or $2145.83 per check. Of that, I get to keep $1,492.97. So that means, that of my pay check, I keep 69% of it, as I pay $31.11 in medicare taxes per check, $133.04 in Social Security taxes, $376.87 in federal taxes, $110.54 in New York state taxes, and $1.10 in NY Emp. SDI (whatever the hell that is).
If you think about that, that means that I lose 30% of my income right off the bat. That means that of the 12 month
Missing element in your equation..... (Score:3, Insightful)
So, the equations aren't equal.
Time and time again, the private sector has shown itself to be more efficient than the government (or any other monopoly, for that matter).
Even elements of government "run as businesses" don't function as efficiently as their private counterparts. If I have to get a package som
Re:Missing element in your equation..... (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Missing element in your equation..... (Score:3, Interesting)
> > How is this different from in a corporation?
> It is different from a corporation in that a corporation has an incentive to skim as little as possible off the top to support its "bureacracy" - the government has no incentive to keep its costs low.
But corporations are not autonomous entities. They are run by people.
Specifically they are run by the very "bureacracy" that w
Re:Missing element in your equation..... (Score:4, Insightful)
Efficiency, however, means that you eventually pay less for something that you originally paid a certain price for. If I pay X for a process to make widgets, but I then find a way to do it more efficiently, it will cost me Y less. (Either through spending less on machinery or on labour savings.) If X - Y then equals Z, I can lower prices and/or sell more widgets. In either instance, if people then buy those widgets, I make more money. (Either by saving Y, or the increase in sales, or both.)
Efficiency translates into savings which can create wealth - the government can not create wealth.
For that matter, the government can't create anything other than more government - any goods and/or services the government uses from the private sector is that much less that the private sector has for the rest of the private sector.
Here is a very simple fact - people pay taxes. Unless the government is exactly repaying those taxes, and giving the people more money than they took in taxes, they are not creating wealth. It's that simple. If you can sit there and say that the government provides goods and services in larger amount then they take in all the taxes from the citizenry, then you are living in a dream world.
Re:Missing element in your equation..... (Score:2)
I never said efficiency was the only way to create wealth. I said it is A method to create wealth that the government does not have (and glaringly so). You have yet to point out how government creates
Re:Missing element in your equation..... (Score:2)
Your saying that our statements are invalid is an active claim, one which you continually fail to buttress with logic or examples.
Re:"Government doesn't create wealth". (Score:1)
Re:"Government doesn't create wealth". (Score:2)
It is not an opinion that the government does not create wealth - it is a fact. Just look at
Re:"Government doesn't create wealth". (Score:3, Interesting)
This is nothing more than playing games with the definition of "wealth"; your argument is effec
Re:"Government doesn't create wealth". (Score:2)
Re:"Government doesn't create wealth". (Score:2)
The rest of what you say has nothing to do with anything. Contrived hypothetical anecdotes do not prove generalities.
Re:"Government doesn't create wealth". (Score:2)
Re:"Government doesn't create wealth". (Score:2)
Re:"Government doesn't create wealth"Nose? What no (Score:2)
Knows and does are two things, usually.
Two examples:
1: We often "know" that not smoking or losing weight are "best" for us. But how often, as a society, do we do this? Also, isnt it "best" for a rich person to not have such poverty around him/her that those without would kill him to take it?
2: Enron/Worldcom. Was it "best" for these people to take the actions they did? Demonstratably, the ans
Re:"Government doesn't create wealth"Nose? What no (Score:2)
The government does indeed land on things like comets, etc., for two reasons. One, it has to spend the money it takes in on something. And two, enough people are currently interested in such things that the government can please a majority of them by doing such t
Re:"Government doesn't create wealth"Nose? What no (Score:2)
You've been stating things all night, so if that's not the same as it being true, that holds for you as well. Of course, you know what they say - arguing on the internet is useless. So this will be my last post.
Your problem with my examples is that you're thinking of now and only now. If mining gold further out in the solar system will occur, it wil occur in the future - when technology is better, and the "per-ounce cost of lifting" will have
Re:"Government doesn't create wealth"Nose? What no (Score:2)
I think that just about says it all. A government program has produced little of value in recent years anyway. If that's the case then NASA's budget should be reduced in the are of manned space flight. But the government hasn't done that. Furthermore, it should be increased in robotic exploration, since we agree that that has become more valuable, but it has only occurred very minimally.
Well, I'm sorry you don't wi
Re:"Government doesn't create wealth"Nose? What no (Score:2)
In 2005, asteroid mining is imaginary - but what I was saying is that it is likely imaginary now in the same way the moon landing was in 1960. As technology advances, the "imaginary" becomes reality. That will happen again - it's just a matter of time.
Someone did create Slashdot. Someone did create NASA. The difference is that Slashdot has a business model and a method for generating
Re:"Government doesn't create wealth". (Score:2, Interesting)
the difference (Score:2)
That's why corporations spend their money researching (and marketing) a wide variety of *treatments* and governments spend their time researching *cures*.
I won't claim that government always succeeds at enriching society, but at least they generally make the effort
Re:the difference (Score:5, Interesting)
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,"
It doesn't say "to enrich society". It doesn't say that in the Constitution, either. It's strange that you attribute a function (enriching society) to government that it was never created to do. Society should enrich society. So your definition of government is flawed.
How is the government accountable? By voting? Surely you would not suggest such a thing, when most races end in ties and most politicians are 'bipartisan" to everyone's detriment.
What has the Department of Defense provided the private sector? How silly! Most DoD stuff is private sector built (Boeing, Lockheed-Martin, etc.) for the government. That shows how little you know!
As for the Department of Education, we have spent TRILLIONS on public schools, and they are arguably the worst in the world. The Japanese, Europeans, and Canadians all have higher standards of education than the US and spend far less per student than we do. If that's "enriching society", you have a WARPED definition of enriching.
You do realise that it was the FDA that prevented companies from seeing the European trial results of most drugs? Obviously not. There should be de-regulation. Not everything will be perfect all the time. But when the government approves a medicine it knows to be harmful, and prevents private companies from seeing evidence to the contrary, no one wins. And companies don't sell posion when there is profit to be made - killing your customers is the quickest way to losing them.
Heh, and your accountability argument is laughable. The reason people are not held accountable now is because they're able to utilise donations to political parties to curry favours - in a government that serves only its legitimate purpose that couldn't happen.
The prinicipal of mutual exclusivity is where it's bad. If loggers want to cut down trees, and environmentalists want to save the spotted owl, whom should the government please? The government offends the loggers to please the environmentalists - they offend the environmentalists to please the loggers.
A logging company has incentive to provide for the owls - it doesn't want to lose environmentally conscious customers.
Re:the difference (Score:2)
Today it is. But in the old times the Army had the Arsenals. Like the Redstone Arsenal...
Re:"Government doesn't create wealth". (Score:2)
Re:"Government doesn't create wealth". (Score:4, Interesting)
In general I agree with the statement you have issue with. Many many things the govt gets involved with they should not - private industry will do much better. Even in your example I think that private industry would be better at spreading that wealth in that less goes into "red tape". Though I think you are taking too hard a line on that philiosophy, the govt can create wealth just not as good as private industry.
That being said, it isn't universally true. There are things that almost nothing but a govt entity can do because of thier resources available and little to no interest in profits. NASA being one of those (nationl defense being another). Do I think that a private corp could do it better? Sure. Do I think a private corp would do it better? Probably not.
Take for instance my last job (now layed off, so you can't think I'm peddling for money
Think of this as an x-prize vs federal contract for space flight. Right there epitomises the philosophy - who do you go to for a robust cheap system? It's *much* better than the lowest bidder or internal funding system the govt has.
Still, I would like to see the govt (and NASA) offer a *huge* prize along with a contract along the lines of the x-prize as only the govt has the resources to do the work needed. I think it could marry the best of both worlds.
Re:"Government doesn't create wealth". (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:"Government doesn't create wealth". (Score:2, Funny)
The purpose of government is, beyond defense, to deplete the surplus productivity. In an age where workers become ever more productive their exceess leisure would otherwise lead to great unhappiness and unrest.
While research ventures like NASA seem to be unlimited sinkholes to pour excess productivity into, actually the reverse is true. In the long term research always pays off, producing results which make people more productive.
To balance this we need even more bureaucracy and middle management in NAS
Re:How about this? (Score:2)
ah, you mean they earn money. that is not money making, that is money redistributing.
it is actually very easy to understand.
imagine, i have 100 moneys. i buy a product of the company you described for, say, 50 moneys.
now i have got 50 moneys less and the company one of their products less, but 50 moneys more.
that is redistribution, nothing else. wealth cannot be created, only redistributed.
Re:How about this? (Score:2)
The company that you gave "50 moneys" to, in order to continue to get customers, will use your 50 moneys to improve their efficiency. (Why? If they don't, you'll buy from some other company that does - competition.) So if they can then offer their product for 45 moneys, when you get your next paycheck, if you buy their product again, you'll have 5 extra moneys. Wealth
Re:How about this? (Score:2)
in fact, money is virtual and stands for debt.
when you work for your employer, he owes you a debt for your work. normally it would be some physical value but it is unpractical so he gives you money as a symbol for a physical value. first, the coins were of gold and silver and already had their physical value. later paper money were issued by a bank and this paper money stood for a fixed value in gold, sil
Re:How about this? (Score:2)
You're right about it standing for debt - that's the case today. However, money is supposed to be redeemable for something. If you have it, you should be able to get something for it, even in the abstract - you can't get a "debt".
But that's the way it is today - it represents debt. Aside from the fallaciousness of basing our money on an abstraction instead of something real, let's look at your arguments.
1) If you have 100 dollar bills, and they are each worth 1 dol
Re:How about this? (Score:2)
the people have their basic needs first.
Re:How about this? (Score:2)
However, if it weren't for examples, what fun could we have?
Good for You (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Good for You (Score:2)
consider this, every year in advancing technology for consumer(including warfare etc) use spawns new innovations and new technological means that put the cost of going to space down every day. getting to space gets cheaper per year regardless of what nasa does as pure research projects.
basically what i'm saying is that going to space will be drastically cheaper in 100 years regardless of if we focus on it completely or not(and quite frankly,
Making money (Score:1)
It is about MAKING money.
Re:Delta 4 Heavy (Score:2)