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."

Comments

The truth

[gulfan]

The real truth is that all the members of the ISS team are actually on a weight loss program and are currently fasting.

Man...

[Icarus1919]

Man, it's a slow news day. Next headline: Man eats christmas dinner, says it's pretty good.

Re:Man...

[Wakkow]

Just ask the previous ISS crew.. They really enjoyed this crew's Christmas dinner a while ago. =P

Source:
"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."

Not to sound like an ass

[Anonymous Coward]

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...

Re:Not to sound like an ass

[Phil246]

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.

Re:Not to sound like an ass

[cyclone96]

Caveat: I work for NASA.

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

[tftp]

Well, I am not cyclone96, but why not to reply anyway... not that there is anything else to do :-)

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.

Re:Merry Christmas?

[Morlark]

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.

Re:Merry Christmas?

[benna]

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.

"Government doesn't create wealth".

[Grendel Drago]

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

Re:"Government doesn't create wealth".

[bm_luethke]

FWIW, I'll start that I am generally a die hard conservative and now am usually considered a neocon (though actions speak louder than words, can't say how many times I've seen people lie about thier political affiliation in order to have thier arguments contain more wieght).

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 :) ). I did what would be called basic comp sci research. Not that it was easy, but that it was not domain specific. Phizer, Shell oil, Los Alamos, almost any place that does high performance computing has rolled thier own versions of the software we worked on. That had *a lot* of duplicate effort with little profit to a company that would produce a package to deal with maintenance of thier clusters. Thus private companies would most likely never release thier own versions - in steps the deep pockets of the federal govt. I made around 30k a year but with the federal govt's overhead I cost over 100k - private industry rarely has that over head.

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.

More accurate headline

[Zenmonkeycat]

"Russian ICBM Accidentally Fails to Destroy Space Station: Next Attempt Will Carry Live Warhead Instead of Food."

Re:More accurate headline

[Anonymous Coward]

Having tried English pudding, the true evil of this plot by the ZAR is exposed...

That is one of the most inhuman war stories I've ever heard. A moment of silence for their tastebuds......

Re:Priorities

[DM9290]

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.

Missing element in your equation.....

[idiotnot]

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.

Re:Missing element in your equation.....

[datastalker]

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.

Re:the difference

[datastalker]

Governments do not exist to enrich society. They exist to protect rights. The Declaration of Independence says it best:

"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:Priorities

[Chandon Seldon]

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.