Slashdot Mirror
Russian Supply Ship Docks At ISS
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 real truth is that all the members of the ISS team are actually on a weight loss program and are currently fasting.
If this is how we are going to do it, we should not be doing it. We should either commit the resources to do the project correctly or we move on to other needs.
Man, it's a slow news day. Next headline: Man eats christmas dinner, says it's pretty good.
It's a good thing it got there, would have been a waste if they had to come home early.
It's flamebait when they views of the reader are the same of that of the moderator. I simply think that the government has no business funding NASA. Let the corporations do it. Government doesn't create wealth, it just redistributes it.
We'd first have to go through Roland Piquepaille's ad-blog to read about that Christmas dinner!
When will they scrap this project and work on getting us back to the moon.
"Man, it's a slow news day. Next headline: Man eats christmas dinner, says it's pretty good."
What was left out is that the man was a cannibal.
Guess we're not having Christmas next year.
Not to sound like an ass but how could food supplies ever get that low.
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...
I take issue with this. I know, libertarians say this like neocons say "why do you hate America so much?". But I'd like you to explain how the first following scenario creates wealth, whereas the second only redistributes it.
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
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
corporations redistribute wealth as well ;) , only to their own pockets.
a corporation in the end is interested in only one thing.
Making money.
"Russian ICBM Accidentally Fails to Destroy Space Station: Next Attempt Will Carry Live Warhead Instead of Food."
*****
Dear Mary,
I yearn for you tragically,
A.T. Tappman, Chaplain, U.S. Army.
Just a few days ago, Putin himself agreed to accept a pro-West president of the Ukraine, taking most of the West off guard.
Unlike China, Russia is destined to be a great ally of America.
Wouldn't it make sense to send up a load of twinkies and potato chips? If they are having this much trouble with snacking it could be a simple solution. Look they're lightweight, high calorie and have an expiration date beyond the expected service life of the space station itself. Alright they have no measurable nutritional value but you can't have everything.
Does anyone else find it odd that they still report every accomplishment in space? I mean, I can see informing the world about landing on the moon for the first time or even landing a rover on a planet other than our own, but it seems trivial appending "successful" to everything we get right in space.
"CNN Reports a successful launch of yet another satellite into our Earth's orbit..." just doesn't have the same ring at "CNN Reports a successful launch of the first manned-spaceship to Mars." The satellite thing (which seems to happen almost yearly or even twice yearly) seems to me like it should be something that we should be able to do without thinking.
Forty years (approx.) since we landed on the moon, we're still labeling each and EVERY thing with mission completed as "successful." Before space travel, flying was the latest greatest and now-a-days we don't go around proclaiming successful flights around the world -- it's an every day thing and something that can be done almost by itself (autopilot).
I do not believe it would be such a tragedy (or a big deal) if the cargo ship and the ISS had an unsuccessful docking. Sure they might be evacuated, but they'll probably just send up more people next year (right?)!
It's obvious that you do, since I've cleverly been able to see through your argument and deduce that you believe we should be giving food and healthcare to poor people, instead of to those who genuinely deserve it, America's wealthy elite! You treasonous swine!
"Without headlines like this, most people would be entirely content to have humanity remain on Earth indefinitely. Or until a huge comet hits and wipes us all out."
You say that like it's a bad thing.
Nasa and other such organizations are essential to the survival of the human race. Without a proper space program then people will never leaver Earth/ The Solar System and then when something goes awry you can wave bye to the human race. Now, seeing as you obviously have moral objection to NASA, let's make a deal. If earth is ever under threat of destruction and NASA offers you tickets on any life boat they may think up you have to give them to me so you don't violate your moral objection to a government funded space program. Agree?
"A Russian-built cargo ship has successfully docked with the International Space Station"
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.
Systems setup in 7-11s in Japan actually do the ordering itself? and not only mundane repeat orders. It actually orders depending on weather, temperature and date/time of year. E.g +3 degrees change in temperature and it orders more beer, etc.
Cool system, maybe Nasa could learn something from them.
Money that's taken by government inevitably has a sizable portion skimmed off the top to support bureaucracy. And there is little personal incentive in government for innovation and top performance.
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 somewhere in two days, I'm not going to the US Postal Service -- I'm going to UPS or FedEx.
Your examples are exactly equivalent, but the statement "government does not create wealth, only distribute it" is still accurate.
What I mean:
Neither government nor capitalism create wealth, only distribute it. Only individuals create wealth. Both government and capitalism are only instruments by which individuals can potentially facilitate this process, as they do in your hypothetical examples. However these examples are exceptions; usually both governments and capitalism serve only as impediments to the process of individuals creating wealth.
What philosophy, exactly, would the above statements be an example of? Becuase it definitely isn't libertarianism.
"Not to sound like an ass..."
Interesting expression.
How does one sound like an ass? Increase their bean intake?
"If the money had to be taxed from the public, then it wasn't worth spending on that, by definition."
By who's definition? Everyone seems to have their own selfish definition. I don't want to be taxed for roads, schools, or fire service so I guess by definition it was "stolen".
Maybe we shouldn't be spending money on space and all the good things that come from it, because "by definition" we aren't worth spending it on. Here's to extinction for such a selfish, species. Maybe the next one up, can look beyond their noses.
In future, please do no more than one of the following in a single post.
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.
It is about MAKING money.
It is ironic that you are the one who can't see past his own nose.
Your post goes on about how everyone is selfish, and that that should not be the case. How very wrong you are! The best system for creation of wealth is one in which everyone acts selfishly.
In any case, who is to know what is best for me? After I am of reasoning age, that person is me. No one can no better what I like than I do. No one can no better what is important and/or desirable and/or necessary for me than me. So it is therefore the natural state to assume that it is I who knows what is best for me, and that I will take steps to get that which is best for me.
If that is to be the case, then it follows that that is the case for every person individually. So as a society, it is therefore safest to assume that each person knows what is best for him or herself.
Each person also has talents. For example, one may be a programmer, and one may be a musician. One may be a dietitican, and another an airplane pilot. While there may be some overlap (a pilot that plays piano), no one person can be talented in every one thing. Therefore, when the pilot knows that he needs a program, he has to either learn to program, or he has to engage the programmer to make one for him. If the programmer also needs to take a flight, they trade - each in their own interest.
Nowadays, the trading is more complex, as instead of straight barter, currency serves as a medium of exchange. The pilot pays the programmer, as the programmer wants money more than the programm, and the pilot wants the program more than the money. But each only gets what he wants by acting in his own interest.
While these examples are simple, the concepts define the basic free market principles. Society is basically supposed to work on those principles, but on a larger scale.
When private companies fund space exploration, they do it to make money. When the government does it, it does it to spend money. The goals are vastly different. The manned craft to land on an asteroid will be a mining craft made by a private company - the minerals they mine will provide wealth to that company, and create jobs in that company. What incentive does the government have to land a craft on an asteroid? At best they could justify landing on an asteroid with an unmanned craft for the sake of knowledge - but it will likely never land a manned craft on an asteroid because it can't take those risks (will please too few people, and offend too many), and because even if it did, and it were to mine the asteroid, it would have to then distribute the wealth among the people, as that is the purpose of the government.
Each person acting selfishly is exactly what we want.
Hey! Send up a Delta 4 Heavy packed to the hilt with food water and air. The probably wont have to resupply with that stuff for a few decades.
Party at O'zorgnax's Pub! Buy me a Slurmtini aye?
What did they actually run out of, the frozen McDonald's or the Vodka.
The best system for creation of wealth is one in which everyone acts selfishly. In any case, who is to know what is best for me?
But what is good for you and what is good for the creation of wealth are not at all the same thing.
Your statements do say something about which system is more appropriate-- since being good for individuals is probably more important than just creating wealth-- but yet they do say absolutely nothing about what system creates more wealth.
The manned craft to land on an asteroid will be a mining craft made by a private company - the minerals they mine will provide wealth to that company, and create jobs in that company. What incentive does the government have to land a craft on an asteroid?
Yet the government does land on asteroids, comets, etc., becuase unlike a business it does not require "incentive" to get something done.
A business, however, will only go to that asteroid if the action produces a net profit. If there isn't sufficient money in mining that astroid to send out the craft, then business just won't plain do it. And considering it's damn hard to send stuff into space and back, there's probably absolutely nothing you could mine in space that would justify spending even the money neccessary just to transport its weight back to earth once mined. Considering the exorbant billions upon billions of dollars that went into reaching the point we're at now where we can send craft to asteroids, and the limited knowlege about what was in space we possessed before we began sendings stuff up there, when-- if at all-- would business have decided that the potential money to be made in space is sufficient to outweigh spending those billions into research in how to do it, had the government not stepped forward and spent those billions for them?
OK, so you're saying Russians are guilty because NASA fucked up the Shuttle program. Is it just me or someone else thinks this reasoning is funny?
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.
I think you're just trying to bait me at this point. You either didn't read my post, or you didn't understand it - the entire post outlaid which system is more appropriate. And it entirely says that a less government system creates more wealth.
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 things. If that were to change, the government would stop doing such things.
However, your saying that the government has a lack of incentive is true. If gold were found in large deposits on Mars tomorrow, who do you think would land there first? Burt Rutan and crew, or the Feds? Remember that the Feds have no shuttle program right now because the entire fleet is grounded due to the loss of 25% of the fleet!
And you're right - a business will only go if there is a net profit, either directly or indirectly. And your "billions of dollars" example is bad, because that's mostly government waste! Or do you not remember the $700 hammers and the $1000 dolalr toilet seats? It's very simple - if business can make a profit, they will go. If government has money to burn (which they take from you!) and can please enough people, they might go - and might fail miserably often (two shuttles, several Mars probes), but might not. It's a craphsoot with the government - whereas with private companies you can make educated guesses and/or do research and arrive at conclusions.
Find out about the Lexus Rx400h Hybrid!
Governments exist to enrich society. Corporations exist to enrich their shareholders. If society benefits in the latter case, it's a fortunate side effect. But time and time again, we've seen which side corps will pick when the chips are down.
.1%
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 and are somewhat accountable. Corporations are only about looking out for their shareholders and don't give a shit about anyone else, even their own employees.
In fact, I would challenge you to name two others!
Dept of Defense and Dept of Education.
And before you say "The FDA", I would point out the recent scandals. For further evidence, there was a very good special on PBS that showed that the FDA was aware that certain drugs caused heart problems - and they still approved them!
Because corporations and Randiots like yourself have been pressuring entities like the FDA or the SEC to stop interfering with corporations' shareholder-given right to sell poison to unsuspecting customers. Now that you've got politicians in office who have been happily defanging regulatory agencies, you have the gall to complain that they're not doing enough to interfere. Which is it? Do you want regulatory oversight or not?
accountability is much more direct in a private company or investment.
Maybe if the company is owned by handful of people. There's only accountability in a corporation if they don't make money; no one gets held accountable if they kill people.
The government does not have an incentive to create wealth - the government has an incentive to please as many people as possible, and offend as few as possible.
And this is a bad thing how? I'll take that over the countless numbers of corporations who have decided to fuck everyone else over to improve their profit margin by
I think you're just trying to bait me at this point. You either didn't read my post, or you didn't understand it
I'm not sure who you are but I do not think I was responding to a post of yours.
the entire post outlaid which system is more appropriate
The post I was responding to indicated the poster had a belief as to which system was more appropriate. Alas, stating something is not the same thing as it being true.
If gold were found in large deposits on Mars tomorrow, who do you think would land there first?
Well, whoever landed on Mars first definitely wouldn't care one bit about the gold. Any concievable per-ounce cost associated with lifting something from the surface of Mars back to earth would far, far outweigh the per-ounce cost of gold even if you ignore the development cost it would take to get there. This is the problem. There isn't particularly any money to be made in space except in satellites and tourism, and there is only so much money in tourism.
Remember that the Feds have no shuttle program right now
You don't need a shuttle or any manned craft to mine gold on mars.
And you're right - a business will only go if there is a net profit, either directly or indirectly.
But there isn't. So without government actions, there would be nothing comparable to current space development that had been done by any human. Perhaps this isn't a particularly good thing?
And your "billions of dollars" example is bad, because that's mostly government waste!
This is mere distraction.
You've been responding to my posts all night. Pay attention!
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 come down. No one is suggesting these things will happen now - and your inability to see a hypothetical example for what it is shows how staggeringly little imagination you have.
Right now, you are correct about satellites and tourism, but even in 1965 they were too expensive to be worhtwhile investments. Thankfully society progresses! (No thanks to the likes of you.)
You don't need a shuttle to mine gold on Mars. But my point was more that one accident halts the government's space flight program entirely. It sets them back YEARS at a time. Imagine if they had an accident trying to land someone on Mars? How long it would be before they tried again?
There isn't net profit NOW. So no one is going NOW. But in the future when there MAY be a profit, they MAY go then.
And is it mere distraction? Simply mentioning something as a distraction (because you don't want to, or can't, refute it) doesn't make it so. The government does waste billions of dollars - it is in all the papers and is well documented (do a goolge search for "government waste").
Find out about the Lexus Rx400h Hybrid!
It shouldn't have fallen on Russia, Europe, or even China to be the "space rescuers", it should have been the US. It is really sad how far America has backslid in space exploration since the '80s.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
This whole scandal just came up because mcdonalds decided to cut their running costs and close their SpaceDonalds, which would have supplied the spacemen .. ofcourse ...
...
that wouldn't have been healthy but at least we wouldn't have to send up zillion dollar rockets to feed 2 astronauts
I'd tell you the chances of this story being a dupe, but you wouldn't like it.
It was food mismanagement. They simple ate too much at each meal. We are not going to mars until we can get a working bio-dome.
When shuttles are grounded it would be only natural of NASA to give russians some money to build more Soyuzes and Progresses especially considering that they can do it on the cheap. But, no, Department of State said: evil Russkies are building a nuclear power plant in Iran, so NASA is prohibited from expanding the cooperation with Russia beyond the original ISS contract
Please keep Japan's relative geographical size and population in mind when comparing what nations can do when properly wired, etc. It usually becomes apples and oranges when you try to port such systems from tiny insular nations to the USA.
This is incidentally why smaller nations like the UK and Japan have what we often perceive to be more advanced technology despite the US being the financial driver in both markets.
You don't need a shuttle to mine gold on Mars. But my point was more that one accident halts the government's space flight program entirely.
It halted their manned space flight program. But their manned space flight program has produced little of value in recent years anyway. Their robotic exploration program is still doing valuable and important things.
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 come down. No one is suggesting these things will happen now - and your inability to see a hypothetical example for what it is shows how staggeringly little imagination you have.
Life is not a hypothetical example and I do not wish to live in a world of imagination. Perhaps manned space exploration in 1950 rather than spaceflight 400 years from now (or possibly not at all) is an inherently good thing? Many people might argue there is something inherently better about man having walked on the moon before the end of their lifetime versus man having not walked on the moon in that period. Someone who feels this way will not find "it might have happened without the government, someday, eventually, IF there were profit in it" sufficient justification to make the worth of what NASA does disappear entirely.
"Their manned space flight program has produced little of value in recent years anyway."
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 wish to live in a world of imagination. It's imagination that allows people to think of ways to make things better. Only looking at the static NOW provides no incentives for future examinations, and there's no fun in anything! It is human imagination which propels us, and makes us better, and I'm sorry you choose not to engage yours. After all, someone once imagined Slashdot, and that's provided us this forum to engage each other.
Find out about the Lexus Rx400h Hybrid!
After all, someone once imagined Slashdot, and that's provided us this forum to engage each other.
But slashdot is not imagination. Someone actually sat down and created it. Like NASA, it exists in reality. As opposed to your space mining example, which depends on an imaginary universe where mining in space is profitable, an imaginary universe where free enterprise developed the technology to get into space and find out what is there and not government, and an as-yet-imaginary set of space mining technologies which apparently exist for no reason except to prove a point about what the free market might eventually do.
"Engaging your imagination" is quite different from living in a world of make believe, similarly to how making condescending statements is quite different from actually participating in an argument. I would prefer living in this reality, where man has actually set foot in the moon and private citizens have actually broken the "edge of space" barrier, to living in a world where manned space exploration is just this fantastic thing in the realm of the imagination which free enterprise might someday provide, maybe.
Yes, but in 1960, landing on the moon was something *imaginary* - it took almost ten years to actually become a reality.
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 income, so it will likely stick around; NASA has a bureaucracy which you yourself have admitted "hasn't done much in manned flight lately". (Granted, it has in robotic flight.)
I'll take what free enterprise might provide someday over what the government provides now. To me, that's the possibility of something, versus my money being stolen!
As of yet, all you've done throughout this whole argument is say that my arguments are negative or bad. That may or may not be - I provide examples and logic though! You have not done that! You just say that my arguments are bad, but provide none of your own.
Since you are incapable of defending your position, and I have given you ample opportunity to do so, I must conclude that your position, by your own lack of logic and example, is untenable. Since you have provided no examples of your own (real or imaginary!), you can not defend your own position, and therefore, by default, I am forced to conclude that your position in the argument is invalid.
Find out about the Lexus Rx400h Hybrid!
*So as a society, it is therefore safest to assume that each person knows what is best for him or herself.*
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 answer is no, it seems to have landed them without a company to make money from, and possibly, with some sactions.
Communism failed because it did not take into account the fundamental drives of the people that constitute the economy. It is my belief that pure, unregulated capitalism would fail for the same basic reason, failing to take into account the people's fundamental drives.
emt 377 emt 4
They were "forced" to eat candy. There's a grade school lesson in their somewhere.
Award winning hair styling and hair coloring, 100% natural hair extensions, pictures and photos of perms, glamorous updos, bridal hair updos, prom updos, body waves, for men and women. Framesi, Bio Ionic, Wella, Paul Mitchell, Matrix, Rusk, Clairol, Shades Q., and more.