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."

15 of 196 comments (clear)

  1. Priorities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Priorities by traveyes · · Score: 2, Insightful

      well... they got the food there. they must've done something right.

      .

    2. Re:Priorities by DM9290 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      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.

      --
      No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
    3. Re:Priorities by Chandon+Seldon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm sure the Russians are less putting guns to people's heads and more laughing their ass off that they're owning the USA at space on a fraction of our budget and with technology from the 60's.

      --
      -- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
  2. Re:Man... by gulfan · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Oh, let me guess - someone is killed in Iraq too? I don't even bother with the news anymore. It's way too predictable.

  3. Re:Not to sound like an ass by Phil246 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    remember the shuttle burning up? Thats a major cause to why the supplies ever got that low in the first place.
    nasa grounded all shuttle flights if you remember, and relied on the russians to send things up there.

  4. Re:Merry Christmas? by Morlark · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I would wonder if scrapping this project really will get us back to the moon any quicker. Interest in space is nowhere near as high as it was back in the days of the Apollo landings, and it's efforts like the ISS that are keeping space in the headlines. 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.

    --
    Santa's suicide mission go!
  5. Re:Merry Christmas? by benna · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm sick of people not seeing the good science that is being done by NASA as it is. Just because it may be more science-fictiony to go to the moon doesn't make it more valuable. We will go to mars (which would be alot more benificial than going to the moon) in good time. Until then let's work on the ISS.

    --
    "It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
  6. Good for You by darthdavid · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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?

  7. Re:Man... by SoLO · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Don't forget that our shuttle fleet is grounded.

  8. Re:Not to sound like an ass by Keeper · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Indeed. But they should have evac'd or done something ASAP about it.

    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 apart with nobody on it and go back to earth on the escape module. I doubt it was a coincidence that they had 7 days of food remaining when the supply capsule docked.

    The crew aboard ISS would have been royally SOL (Shit Outta Luck).

    They wouldn't have. The ISS itself would be SOL, but that's another story entirely.

  9. Missing element in your equation..... by idiotnot · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Missing element in your equation..... by datastalker · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You obviously do not know about government budgets. If you do not spend your budget by the end of the year, you do not get the same amount of money next year. My father worked for a government agency for fifteen years, and I worked for a state government for five, so I know that which of I speak. The budgets, therefore, are the same or more the following year. There is no saving there.

      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.

  10. Embarrassment for the US by EzInKy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Embarrassment for the US by -kertrats- · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, you're a bit slow on the concept of 'international', aren't you. Too used to the US paying all the bills for the UN?

      --
      The Braying and Neighing of Barnyard Animals Follows.