Proton-M Rocket Carrying Russia's Most Advanced Satellite Crashes

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Proton-M Rocket Carrying Russia's Most Advanced Satellite Crashes

Posted by timothy on Friday May 16, 2014 @01:27AM from the tough-thing-to-get-right dept.

schwit1 (797399) writes "When it rains it pours: A Russian Proton rocket crashed Friday nine minutes after launch. Considering the tensions between the U.S. and Russia over space, combined with the increasing competition for the launch market created by SpaceX's lower prices, another Proton failure now is something the Russians could do without. Moreover, the Russians were planning a lot of Proton launches in the next few months to catch up from last year's launch failure. Many of these scheduled launches were commercial and were going to earn them hard cash. This failure definitely hurts, and will certainly be used as justification by their government in increase its control over that country's aging aerospace industry."

160 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

More government control, that's the ticket by Teresita · 2014-05-16 01:33 · Score: 4, Insightful

This failure definitely hurts, and will certainly be used as justification by their government in increase its control over that country's aging aerospace industry."

Because paying folks by the hour rather than by the successful launch is a surefire way to cut Space-X off at the knees. This from the land of the three-man shovel.
1. Re:More government control, that's the ticket by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-16 01:43 · Score: 1
  
  yeah, because paying per successful launch would surely never cause a company like SpaceX to try to cut corners, take unacceptable risks, and get as many launches squeezed in as possible, right?
  
  When you're talking about people's lives at stake, and lobbing enormous explosive devices around, minimizing people's hours and maximizing the profit isn't necessarily the best answer.
  
  It's similar to the way private control has completely fucked up the US healthcare system.
2. Re:More government control, that's the ticket by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-16 01:48 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  This is funny to me because even though the Russians beat you in most the early space milestones, the USA finally put a man on the Moon ... by making one giant government-backed project...
  While the Russian approach was to set up various competing design bureaus.
  Like I said, hilarious.
3. Re:More government control, that's the ticket by ScudBee · 2014-05-16 01:59 · Score: 1
  
  Right, as if Russians did not make one giant government-backed Moon project of their own -- the project that failed spectacuarly.
4. Re:More government control, that's the ticket by Teresita · 2014-05-16 02:01 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  When you're talking about people's lives at stake, and lobbing enormous explosive devices around, minimizing people's hours and maximizing the profit isn't necessarily the best answer.
  
  The evil capitalist profit incentive has gone a long way toward making the chances of dying in a plane crash approach the probability of winning a lottery. If an airline lost the entire plane on the twenty-fifth flight ala Challenger, and again on the 113th flight ala Columbia there'd be a lot of empty seats.
5. Re:More government control, that's the ticket by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-16 02:04 · Score: 0
  
  Um, yeah, I see your knee-jerk reaction and raise you mine.
  The original poster has no idea what the Russian government's response to this incident will be, and doesn't understand the meaning of the word "certainly". Yay for editorializing where it's not needed, and yay for expressing supposition as certain fact. I guess it keeps the comment trolls busy though, coz now your std.libertarian can have a rant about government vs commercial control that's completely unrelated to the story. Bravo everyone on this one.
6. Re:More government control, that's the ticket by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-16 02:05 · Score: 1
  
  You don't understand how the Russians set up their design bureaus, do you?
7. Re:More government control, that's the ticket by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-16 02:07 · Score: 0
  
  Seems to have worked for Boeing.
8. Re:More government control, that's the ticket by dave420 · 2014-05-16 02:12 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  That and the massive amounts of regulation that works directly against the "evil capitalist profit incentive". You picked a really bad industry. Try something with fewer regulations - pogs or Justin Bieber CDs or something.
9. Re:More government control, that's the ticket by deadweight · 2014-05-16 02:15 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Commercial pilot here: If you think "profit" is why airplanes are safe - I am ROFLMAO x 1000. OMFG you could not be more wrong! I once worked for a place that wanted us to call in on the radio with our registration number insteald of XX airlines Flight XXX so the FAA wouldn't even realize we had paying passengers in our ancient shit-heaps. They were ALL ABOUT profit!
10. Re:More government control, that's the ticket by Luckyo · 2014-05-16 02:16 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  It often comes as shocking to many people in the West, but Soviet aerospace industry was pure cutthroat capitalism to the extreme. Competition between respective bureaus was brutal, far more so than current climate in Military Industrial complex in US for example. That is how they ran away several decades ahead of the West in many aspects of that industry. As a result, comparison to current situation with same industry in the West and assuming that what is suggested here is going to Western style "government lead" model is just nonsense.
  Going back to that from the current situation seems like a good plan for the industry in fact. Right now it's massively inbred and corrupt, very similar to industry in the West in the same sectors. This is better than space-x model, this is what it should be - government lead industry that is driven to fierce competition within itself, without the massive overspending that results from need to corrupt government to get contracts and produce profits.
11. Re:More government control, that's the ticket by arth1 · 2014-05-16 02:17 · Score: 2
  
  The evil capitalist profit incentive has gone a long way toward making the chances of dying in a plane crash approach the probability of winning a lottery. If an airline lost the entire plane on the twenty-fifth flight ala Challenger, and again on the 113th flight ala Columbia there'd be a lot of empty seats.
  The evil capitalist profit incentive has ensured that we no longer have manned space flight at all, and depend on the evil socialist from-each-according-to-ability system to do our launches.
12. Re:More government control, that's the ticket by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-16 02:20 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Um... you are forgetting that the reason that the airlines have such excellent safety records is due to the strict government oversight of just about every aspect of the industry. Pilot, Fight Attendants, Mechanics... heck, even the luggage handlers have to be certified to one level or another by the FAA. Every, even minor, mishap with a plane is documented in detail by the NTSB.
  Yes, if the evil capitalistic profits were welcome to run amok there would be no seat belts, oxygen masks, life jackets, interiors would be of highly combustible materials, and the seats would rip from the floor/collapse in a crash - because all of those things add weight - and weight reduces profits. They are there to make the planes safe - not because the airlines want them there.
  Challenger blew up due to political reasons (decision to not-launch (line engineers) was overridden by upper mgt. to make the president look good). Columbia was due to errant assumptions on the part of the engineers at both NASA as well as Lockheed Martin's. 'There is no way this chunk of lightweight foam could possibly cause any damage.' Ooops...
13. Re:More government control, that's the ticket by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-16 02:23 · Score: 1
  
  I agree. I couldn't imagine the nightmarish scenario where government agencies set up strict regulations on every aspect of air travel: from how planes are maintained, to how long pilots are allowed to fly them, to whether a model of aircraft is even permitted to fly at all. If a plane were to crash, you certainly wouldn't want to rely on the government to conduct an extensive investigation into the cause and make detailed recommendations/regulations to ensure it doesn't happen again. Yes, the need to keep shareholders happy has made all of that unnecessary and made air travel as safe as it could possibly be.
14. Re:More government control, that's the ticket by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-16 02:28 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, it's a simple logistic curve thing: some things you can do faster by trying to kill each other, at first.
  But as everyone who works in engineering knows, eventually you hit that part of the curve where if you want just 10% more performance, you need 100 times more people than it took to get the first 90%.
  At that point, you *need* to cooperate and share. But people want to focus on the "first" part I highlighted and think that just by killing each other more, you'll keep getting results.
  I'm always endlessly amazed by Americans who want a "team player" but at the same time have the me myself and I attitude.
  No wonder it's such a neurotic country filled with murderous depressives.
15. Re:More government control, that's the ticket by deodiaus2 · 2014-05-16 02:30 · Score: 0
  
  Well, Wilbert Wright died on his third flight. I am sure that the air travel industry had some pretty bad stats. In the 1950's airline attendants were required to train in First Aid and the uniforms looked a lot like nurse's, something that was not just happenstance.
16. Re:More government control, that's the ticket by gtall · 2014-05-16 02:34 · Score: 1
  
  Hmmm, now that I think of it, I think regulating the producing of Justin Bieber CDs would be in the national interest.
  I agree with the regulation comment, the FAA was and is instrumental in making airliners safe. Risk is something companies tend to put a price on, human lives doesn't really enter into that calculation and is probably considered an external cost. The free market might be able to price it in...and the price would fluctuate...depending upon lives lost...which is not a terribly good way to think about safety.
17. Re:More government control, that's the ticket by Luckyo · 2014-05-16 02:35 · Score: 1
  
  That is also why governmental control is a good thing. When governing body that stands over bureaus sees progress being hamstrung by competition, it can order the cooperation, as was the case in USSR.
18. Re:More government control, that's the ticket by deadweight · 2014-05-16 02:36 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  One of the reasons the FAA (then CAA) was INVENTED was because planes crashed so often that the industry was never going to become viable. One thing they did pretty early on was prohibit making wing spars out of wood for commercial airliners after some people died because of either rot or termites. Absent that rule there would always be one airline not ticking off the "make spar out of metal" option box and saving a few dollars.
19. Re:More government control, that's the ticket by deadweight · 2014-05-16 02:42 · Score: 0
  
  This is easy to demonstrate. Just look at the health statistics from the rest of the 1st world where government more or less runs it and see how much better off we are then they are. Oh wait.....
20. Re:More government control, that's the ticket by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-16 02:45 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Actually, if you dig deeper a lot of regulation comes directly from the business themselves. Established businesses often like regulation because it improves the businesses perception (Hey, where government regulated what could go wrong??) while making it harder for start-ups to compete. A really good example of this is the founding of the USDA. Which came about after the European popularity of "The Jungle" which was basically writing down all the sea monster stores of the meat packing industry. I mean he tells us the meat packers really had us of their thumbs??? Then how did they manage to hold a knife and make exact cuts???
  The US meat packing industry wanted a government seal to put on meat to reassure the European public that American meat was safe to eat.
21. Re:More government control, that's the ticket by gtall · 2014-05-16 02:45 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Yes, it should be the case that any modification to health coverage in the U.S. should not alter any one person's coverage.
  Get a grip, of course changing health coverage over a large swath of the U.S. economy is going to generate winners and losers. So you lost, how about the ones who couldn't get coverage before due to cherry picking by the insurance companies that can now get insurance?
  Personally, I'd have broken the insurance companies knees. By the way, most of the provisions in the ACA where Republican notions before they became Democrat notions. And the the insurance companies were free to direct that legislation, all in good Republican free market theory. If you didn't get what you expected, blame both parties.
22. Re:More government control, that's the ticket by NoImNotNineVolt · 2014-05-16 02:48 · Score: 2
  
  I would say "thanks Obama" but it's more like "thanks Democrats" since the ACA disaster was passed on a 100% partisan basis.
  Nevermind that it's virtually identical to the plan that Romney implemented in his home state.
  
  If you still think there's any meaningful difference between Democrats and Republicans, you're hopelessly ignorant of the world around you.
  
  Pull your head out of your ass, stop throwing your vote away, and support an independent or third party next time around.
  
  --
  Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
23. Re:More government control, that's the ticket by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-16 03:07 · Score: 0
  
  Holy fucking crap you're a nutcase.
24. Re:More government control, that's the ticket by arth1 · 2014-05-16 03:13 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  This is easy to demonstrate. Just look at the health statistics from the rest of the 1st world where government more or less runs it and see how much better off we are then they are. Oh wait.....
  Yes, please do look at the statistics of health and life expectancy for countries like Sweden, Norway and Canada.
  It's way way above what it is in the US.
  I have a surgical joint replacement that doctors here see on the X-rays. More than once they've told me they don't have the expertise to check it out, because US insurance companies would not allow such expensive parts to be implanted in US patients. The US way is to use cheaper parts not built to last, and rely on enough patients dying of other causes before needing replacements for this to pay off.
  Also, the US healthcare system is very reactionary and slow to adopt new techniques based on the fear of lawsuits. Treatments can be available for dozens of years other places before you can get it in the US. Laser eye corrections is a good example. It took some 20 years before the US finally got them like other parts of the world.
  It's about the dollar, not about the quality of life.
25. Re:More government control, that's the ticket by cheesybagel · 2014-05-16 03:25 · Score: 2
  
  The thing is Korolev, Chelomei and Yangel were all competing on that project and it wasn't funded until it was way too late. Plus the funding was way below US funding. So... no wonder it fail.
  Korolev was the designer of Soyuz. He had a lot of issues in the beginning. At one point he was sent to a Gulag in Siberia where he had to work as forced labor on a mine. They broke several of his teeth there.
  Chelomei had a lot of clout when Nikita Khrushchev was in power because he employed one of his relatives. Chelomei was the designer of the Proton rocket.
  It did not help that Korolev died in the middle of the N1 project.
26. Re:More government control, that's the ticket by deadweight · 2014-05-16 03:26 · Score: 1
  
  Moron - not everything in the world exists on google. Look up the history of the Air Commerce Act, Air Mail Act the CAA, etc. in the 1920s and 30s.
27. Re:More government control, that's the ticket by cheesybagel · 2014-05-16 03:26 · Score: 1
  
  Oh nearly forgot. Yangel designed the R-36 rocket NATO designation Satan i.e. the largest MIRV ICBM in the world.
28. Re:More government control, that's the ticket by sideslash · 2014-05-16 03:38 · Score: 1, Troll
  
  Nevermind that it's virtually identical to the plan that Romney implemented in his home state.
  There's an important difference -- Romney signed legislation that the people of Massachusetts (a very liberal state) wanted. In the case of the ACA, the Democrats of Congress pushed it down the throats of an unwilling American public.
  
  If you still think there's any meaningful difference between Democrats and Republicans, you're hopelessly ignorant of the world around you. Pull your head out of your ass, stop throwing your vote away, and support an independent or third party next time around.
  I know the arguments for voting for a third party, and I also know the arguments against doing so. It's all very depressing.
29. Re:More government control, that's the ticket by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · 2014-05-16 03:38 · Score: 1
  
  Well, right now Spacex is only shipping cargo, and they have competitors. The cost to launch includes insurance on the cargo, wich is set by the success rate. If they have more failures than their competitiors, the insurance cost will go up.
  The problem would be if they were a monopoly on launches, where the cost of a failure would go down if they didn't have any competitiors.
  If they do start ferrying people, well then they open themselves up to higher liability with a failure. Worse reputation, higher payouts to families.
  That's not to say it couldn't happen, but there are some monetary things working in their favor to prevent it. You just have to make sure that who ever in the compnay might profit from a successful launch will also suffer for a failure.
  
  --
  Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
30. Re:More government control, that's the ticket by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-16 03:40 · Score: 0
  
  Normalization of deviance ... like replacing a blown fuse with a higher current one.
31. Re:More government control, that's the ticket by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-16 03:44 · Score: 0
  
  "My wife's medications that used to cost $5 now cost $60."
  Every day? Once a year? Context, please.
32. Re:More government control, that's the ticket by NoImNotNineVolt · 2014-05-16 03:55 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Romney signed legislation that the people of Massachusetts (a very liberal state) wanted.
  Don't try to distance him from this legislation. While the Massachusetts legislature did make a number of changes to Romney's original proposal before it was passed, it was Romney's proposal. It wasn't some ballot initiative or invention of the legislature.
  
  Additionally, you'll find that there was widespread support for healthcare reform at the national level as well. Much like the Massachusetts healthcare reform, national healthcare reform was also something that the people wanted. And much like the Massachusetts healthcare reform, the national healthcare reform also had its share of opposition. You make it sound like the American public was united against the ACA, when it is plainly obvious to any honest person that there was in fact extensive support for an overhaul of our healthcare system. Obama had made healthcare reform a large part of the platform that got him elected. This wasn't something that was snuck in or pushed down anyone's throat. It may be hard for some people to believe it, but there's actually a whole range of different opinions on this issue. Just because it was pushed down the throat of an unwilling sideslash doesn't mean the rest of the country was opposed to reform.
  
  That being said, I believe the ACA sucks ass and that single payer was the way to go. I suppose you'd count me alongside yourself as part of the "unwilling American public"?
  
  --
  Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
33. Re:More government control, that's the ticket by Talderas · 2014-05-16 04:01 · Score: 1
  
  Nevermind that it's virtually identical to the plan that Romney implemented in his home state.
  Romney signed the bill with 8 gubernatorial vetos, of which 6 were overridden by the state legislature. The state legislature at the time that bill was passed, by the way, was 6 Republicans and 34 Democrats in the Senate and 21 Republicans and 139 Democrats in the House. It did pass with near unanimous support (only 2 dissenting votes in the house). That said, the bill was introduced and pushed and presented by Democrats and what they had put out was different from what Romney proposed. Given Romney's specific vetos and that the legislature was Democrat controlled, I doubt that the "Romneycare" plan was close to the plan he had suggested.
  
  --
  "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
34. Re:More government control, that's the ticket by necro81 · 2014-05-16 04:03 · Score: 0
  
  That and the massive amounts of regulation that works directly against the "evil capitalist profit incentive". You picked a really bad industry. Try something with fewer regulations - pogs or Justin Bieber CDs or something.
  My cousin was killed by a Justin Bieber pog, you insensitive clod!
35. Re: More government control, that's the ticket by tysonedwards · 2014-05-16 04:03 · Score: 1
  
  Last I checked, when we as a civilization are launching satellites into orbit some costing in excess of hundreds of millions of dollars, the payouts to a family for "my Timmy died in a fiery explosion" would probably be one of those "phew! Thank god it wasn't last weeks rocket that blew up!" moments for their insurance company. The cost of human life just isn't that high to a typical actuary.
  
  --
  Thirty four characters live here.
36. Re:More government control, that's the ticket by deadweight · 2014-05-16 04:06 · Score: 1
  
  Relavant info from the WIKI Gods: Airline safety revolution[edit]With these superior, safer aircraft matched to greatly increased and more public government inspection and regulation of aviation, crash rates plummeted to a tiny fraction of those of the wooden airliner years.[12] Today, the legacy of the Flight 599 crash is simply that the most dangerous way to travel in 1931â"airlinesâ"radically transformed into what has now become the safest way to travel.[2]
37. Re:More government control, that's the ticket by sideslash · 2014-05-16 04:08 · Score: 1
  
  Right, I completely agree that everybody wants "healthcare reform" in some shape or fashion. That's why I specifically referred to the ACA as being pushed down Americans' throats. Not one Republican in Congress voted for it (though I concede that some parts of it have been supported by Republicans from time to time).
  
  The ACA was only passed by means of telling some really bold lies, and shutting out the opposition in the most major act of extreme partisanship that Capitol Hill has seen in a long time.
38. Re:More government control, that's the ticket by k6mfw · 2014-05-16 04:16 · Score: 1
  
  One of the reasons the FAA (then CAA) was INVENTED was because planes crashed so often that the industry was never going to become viable.
  
  which is good as long as FAA doesn't get "regulatory capture" by industry like the FCC has become. I also recall for parachuting equipment (canopies, rigs, etc) all are TSO and materials had to be MIL-SPEC. But those mil-specs were defunked but were picked up by Parachute Industry Association which maintains PIA-specs for materials.
  
  --
  mfwright@batnet.com
39. Re: More government control, that's the ticket by O('_')O_Bush · 2014-05-16 04:18 · Score: 2
  
  Uh... are you trolling or just have no idea what you are talking about? Wilbur Wright died from Typhoid fever almost 10 years after the first flights, and after he had made many, many flights.
  
  Orville died from a heart attack 35 years+ after Wilbur died.
  
  --
  while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
40. Re:More government control, that's the ticket by NoImNotNineVolt · 2014-05-16 04:22 · Score: 2
  
  See my other response here.
  
  The bill was Romney's. He campaigned for it. The legislature made a number of changes, but it was his bill. That it was also supported by Democrats has no bearing on this fact. After the bill's passage, Romney engaged in extensive self-congratulatory behavior. He did not grumble about the terrible healthcare reform bill that was passed against his wishes.
  
  Also, can you please clear up what you mean by "Romney signed the bill with 8 gubernatorial vetos, of which 6 were overridden by the state legislature." I was under the impression that Romney was the governor of Massachusetts at the time. Are you saying he vetoed and signed the bill simultaneously? Or that he didn't sign it because he didn't need to because the bill was passed with a veto-proof majority of the legislature? Or that Romney was battling himself to veto/sign the bill?
  
  --
  Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
41. Re:More government control, that's the ticket by NoImNotNineVolt · 2014-05-16 04:25 · Score: 2
  
  Not one Republican in Congress has voted for any bill supported by Obama. That's more an indication of hyperpartisanship than merit of the legislation itself. The ACA was pushed down Republicans' throats, for sure. Americans in general, however, supported it to various extents. I myself supported it, despite thinking it's shitty, because it's still less shitty than the alternative. Despite being a part of the "hates the ACA" statistic, I still supported its passage, and I wouldn't say it was pushed down my throat any more than our previous shitty healthcare system was pushed down my throat.
  
  --
  Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
42. Re:More government control, that's the ticket by sjames · 2014-05-16 04:30 · Score: 1
  
  If you mean biggest bills, longest wait in the ER, and most medical bankruptcies, then yes. If you mean quality of care, then no. The U.S. is well down in that ranking. Even if you have billions in the bank, the U.S. system is too busy running expensive tests to practice any real medicine anymore.
43. Re:More government control, that's the ticket by cellocgw · 2014-05-16 04:31 · Score: 2
  
  But those mil-specs were defunked but were picked up by Parachute Industry Association
  To be sure, most MIL-SPEC docs are pretty dang funky (White Boy....).
  Dare I ask: did autocorrect spell-bomb you or have you never seen the correct word in print?
  
  --
  https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
44. Re:More government control, that's the ticket by sideslash · 2014-05-16 04:42 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  Not one Republican in Congress has voted for any bill supported by Obama.
  That's a silly thing to say, and it's obviously false. Obama has signed legislation for which Republicans voted.
  
  That's more an indication of hyperpartisanship than merit of the legislation itself. The ACA was pushed down Republicans' throats, for sure. Americans in general, however, supported it to various extents.
  According to polls, many Americans were opposed to the passage of the ACA; sometimes a majority. Some Americans liked the sound of the promises attached to it, and when it turned out later that Obama was just telling baldfaced lies about the ACA in order to get elected, people were disappointed. The "Republican/Tea Party wave" election of 2010 could be seen as a referendum on the popularity of the ACA, and it will be very interesting to see what happens this year.
45. Re:More government control, that's the ticket by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-16 04:47 · Score: 0
  
  It's a shame I don't have the link available, a solid study found out that in private health systems patients die more, simply because they won't do what's necessary to keep people alive due to costs. You pay more, you live less. This study is cited every time Europeans discuss about budget cuts and it is always ignored because politicians are sold to the banks and insurance companies (yeah, Europeans have a shit class too!).
46. Re:More government control, that's the ticket by router · 2014-05-16 04:52 · Score: 1
  
  Also, the US has a huge first generation immigrant population. That skews our national numbers pretty badly in things like life expectancy, child mortality, etc.
47. Re:More government control, that's the ticket by sideslash · 2014-05-16 04:53 · Score: 1
  
  Those comparisons are still somewhat apples to oranges. The cost of living is cheaper in Mumbai than New York City, but most people would rather live in NYC. Here in the USA we have a lot of business startups that burn through piles of cash that would make the third world turn pale -- and of course most startups fail. So does the USA have it worse than third world countries? Of course not. Our failed entrepreneurs laugh, chalk it up to experience, and try again.
  
  With medicine I grant that some of your criticisms are true in a sense, but a fair evaluation is more complicated than you let on, and in fact our healthcare is the envy of almost all of the world. We burn through a lot of cash in our healthcare system, but we also have more cash to burn. The lower classes had many options (even before the ACA) to make sure that the most essential needs get met. The USA is a great place to live in terms of healthcare, and those who claim otherwise have some kind of agenda they're trying to push. (Not saying things can't be improved further, because there's always room for improvement.)
48. Re:More government control, that's the ticket by davester666 · 2014-05-16 04:57 · Score: 1
  
  that model works well for the car industry...
  
  --
  Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
49. Re:More government control, that's the ticket by sideslash · 2014-05-16 04:58 · Score: 1
  
  What a shock. The world is actually a complicated place that doesn't easily align to partisan talking points. :)
50. Re:More government control, that's the ticket by Talderas · 2014-05-16 05:06 · Score: 1
  
  Line item vetoes.
  
  --
  "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
51. Re:More government control, that's the ticket by deadweight · 2014-05-16 05:25 · Score: 1
  
  http://www.npr.org/blogs/healt... TL;DR We suck and the suckage is increasing.
52. Re:More government control, that's the ticket by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-16 05:40 · Score: 0
  
  The US a terrible place to live in terms of healthcare. One of the fun reasons is that US healthcare is focused around all that "cash to burn" you have. Billing and the endless threat of lawsuits doesn't just mean more expenditure it means worse health outcomes. Because cancer does not wait, patiently, not growing or mutating, while a clerk in an office building checks that the paperwork matches what they expected, and because "let's run some more tests first" may be the legally prudent thing to do even when it's not medically the most effective thing to do.
  Mostly though the reason is good old inequality. Even today, even with ACA, a big portion of the burden is on the poor. America treats the poor very, very badly, mostly by pretending they deserve to suffer as a way of excusing itself of any responsibility. It's part of the American dream, "I'll get mine and everybody else will get bent". Nice.
53. Re:More government control, that's the ticket by NoImNotNineVolt · 2014-05-16 05:42 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  That's a silly thing to say, and it's obviously false.
  *sigh*. You're right, we're living in an era of unparalleled cooperation between the two dominant political parties. The Republicans in the legislature haven't been obstinate for the sake of obstruction at all, no. *sigh*
  
  According to polls, many Americans were opposed to the passage of the ACA; sometimes a majority.
  And so this is your rationale for claiming that it was pushed down Americans' throats? That for the most part a minority of Americans were opposed to it? I suppose you're similarly opposed to any other legislation that falls short of unanimous support?
  
  Sadly, it's unlikely that anything interesting will happen this year. I don't see the Democrat/Republican control over our government weakening any time soon. If you expect any meaningful change to come from either side of the same coin, you haven't been paying attention.
  
  --
  Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
54. Re:More government control, that's the ticket by Derek+Pomery · 2014-05-16 05:53 · Score: 2
  
  I've also read, although I'm too lazy to google for it, that where the US gets hit hard is infant mortality.
  While part of that is immigrant population, poverty, another interesting factor is supposedly the US tries a lot harder to save preemies that would simply be considered stillborn elsewhere and not counted as infant mortality.
  
  --
  -- perl -e'print pack"H*","6e656d6f406d38792e6f7267"' /. ate my old sig. Bastards.
55. Re:More government control, that's the ticket by danlip · 2014-05-16 05:56 · Score: 1
  
  Of course the re-election of Obama in 2012 could also been seen as referendum on the popularity of the ACA.
56. Re:More government control, that's the ticket by arth1 · 2014-05-16 06:04 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  What should be an eye-opener is this: "Strikingly, even Americans who are white, insured, college-educated and upper-income are worse off than their counterparts around the world â" a finding that no one quite understands."
  Yes, I am white, insured, college-educated and upper-income, and I definitely agree that healthcare here in the US sucks compared to what I had in Europe. It's old-fashioned and the hospitals work hard to get as much money as possible (doing tests which they can't be sued over, instead of treatments which they can), while the insurance companies work hard to pay them as little money as possible.
  If I ever need major surgery again, I'll have it in Europe. Because the healthcare provided in the US is far from top.
  We may have the best plastic surgeons in the world, and that says a lot about the American society.
57. Re:More government control, that's the ticket by sideslash · 2014-05-16 06:09 · Score: 1
  
  OK, I grant that, in the specific sense of: "If you like your health care plan, you can keep it". Baldfaced lies worked out pretty well for Obama in the 2012 election, at least among the masses of low information voters.
58. Re:More government control, that's the ticket by Gavagai80 · 2014-05-16 06:27 · Score: 1
  
  In America, the life support machine stays on until the bank account runs dry. That's not a good thing. Length of technical "life" is not the goal, quality of life is the goal. And of course, the life expectancy still ends up being longer in Europe as well.
  
  --
  This space intentionally left blank
59. Re:More government control, that's the ticket by Teresita · 2014-05-16 06:40 · Score: 1
  
  The ACA was pushed down Republicans' throats, for sure. Americans in general, however, supported it to various extents.
  
  Sure. And that's why every Donk who wants to retain their seat in November is running away from the ACA as fast as their little legs can carry them.
60. Re:More government control, that's the ticket by Pentavirate · 2014-05-16 07:20 · Score: 2
  
  You have a strange view of the American Dream. The American Dream is that the playing field is level so that if you're smart enough and work hard, you can be successful. I think the statistic is that 80% of all millionaires are first generation rich.
  
  That's not to say that the people who have made it don't try and use the government to throw up barriers of entry, but that's not part of the American Dream. Those are people who are trying to foil the American Dream, but it's still out there and as viable as ever.
  
  --
  www.joshferguson.org
61. Re: More government control, that's the ticket by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-16 07:35 · Score: 0
  
  It was not Pushed down throats, it passed in hurried meetings before even those who voted for it looked at it and with closed door meetings between top democrat leadership and politicians in the states.
62. Re:More government control, that's the ticket by sjames · 2014-05-16 07:35 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, most of the 1st world pities Americans who get sick now. There is no measurement out there that makes healthcare in the U.S. the best or less than the most expensive.
  I'm not talking Mumbai vs. NYC here. More like comparing to London or Toronto.
63. Re:More government control, that's the ticket by NoImNotNineVolt · 2014-05-16 07:57 · Score: 1
  
  You know, I'm no fan of Obama. He's been found to be full of shit on countless occasions. He's failed to keep his promises more often than not. He sucks as much as any other Democrat or Republican president before him.
  
  That being said, I'm inclined to give him a free pass on the point you bring up. Honestly, I don't think it was unreasonable for him to believe that people covered by really shitty healthcare plans didn't actually like those plans. In hindsight, I suppose that was a stupid belief to have; of course people liked those plans, simply because those were the plans they had. That those plans would drop coverage the minute they actually needed it is irrelevant. People are not rational, they're stupid. That's the only thing Obama was guilty of when it comes to the quote you mention: forgetting the sheer number of imbeciles in this country.
  
  He should've said "If you like your health care plan and your healthcare plan isn't totally worthless, you can keep it."
  
  --
  Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
64. Re:More government control, that's the ticket by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-16 08:03 · Score: 0
  
  was pure cutthroat capitalism to the extreme. Competition between respective bureaus was brutal
  Competition is NOT the soul of capitalism.
  Capitalism does NOT follow by competition.
  Capitalists always tend to be monopoly when they have chance, especially, when they are big. Microsoft, oh, the 'don't be evil' Google.
  In pure socialism, as in theory, "from each according to his ability, to each according to the quantity and quality of his work". It **IS** competition.
  Jonathan Ive must be richer than Steve Job, as any engineers must be richer than their "managers".
  In capitalism world, when company fails, its workers (blue/white collars) will be fired, be unemployees, but hardly a 'boss' be an unemployee.
  Soviet was never a socialism state, but its military industry achieved some aspects of 'socialism'.
65. Re:More government control, that's the ticket by sideslash · 2014-05-16 08:25 · Score: 0
  
  That's obviously an oversimplification, since there's a steady stream of medical tourism from Canada to the US. There's something here that people aren't getting up north.
66. Re:More government control, that's the ticket by sideslash · 2014-05-16 08:28 · Score: 1
  
  Obama didn't "forget" anything. He lied. And people weren't forced to drop their "worthless" plans, they were in many cases perfectly good plans that the ACA torpedoed. You appear to have a really naive perspective here, if you were so completely duped by the president's lies and propaganda.
67. Re:More government control, that's the ticket by NoImNotNineVolt · 2014-05-16 08:37 · Score: 1
  
  Your idea of "perfectly good" is at odds with reality. Just because you think a plan that allows the insurer to drop the covered with no notice is "perfectly good" doesn't mean that it is. People covered by such plans (and then dropped by such plans) put significant strain on the healthcare industry, much like other uninsured or underinsured individuals. The ACA outlaws such plans and forces people to get "real" health insurance, insurance that will actually cover them when they need it. There are other shitty plans that the ACA outlaws as well that are just as objectively shitty as these. The ACA doesn't outlaw "perfectly good" plans. I eagerly await any counterexample to my claim. Show me one of these "perfectly good" policies that was outlawed by ACA, along with the specific provision of the ACA that outlaws it, and I will in turn show you the reasoning behind said provision, and consequently why said policy is (or was) shit.
  
  That being said, the ACA is retarded. It forces Americans to give their money to for-profit companies. Any mandatory insurance should be nationalized, be it healthcare, auto liability, etc.
  
  --
  Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
68. Re: More government control, that's the ticket by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-16 08:47 · Score: 0
  
  in the grand scheme of things, Meat in a seat is cheap.
69. Re:More government control, that's the ticket by Sharkford · 2014-05-16 08:51 · Score: 1
  
  Who the heck was Wilbert Wright? Wil*bur* (of Wilbur and Orville) died of Typhoid fever. There was a WWI Ace called Wilbert Wright who died in action but hardly on his third sortie.
  Also, Flight Attendants still train in first aid.
70. Re:More government control, that's the ticket by khallow · 2014-05-16 09:07 · Score: 1
  
  This is funny to me because even though the Russians beat you in most the early space milestones, the USA finally put a man on the Moon ... by making one giant government-backed project...
  
  While the Russian approach was to set up various competing design bureaus.
  While if we look at today, those design bureaus are still designing and launching rockets while outside of a few pieces of ancient infrastructure and some litter on the Moon, no trace of the Apollo program remains.
  
  The Apollo program put twelve people on the Moon and a space station (Skylab) in orbit, but it hasn't done anything of consequence since. And the design organizations that built Apollo lost their experience after the Space Shuttle.
71. Re:More government control, that's the ticket by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-16 10:02 · Score: 0
  
  It was not a lie. If you liked it you COULD keep it.
  Problem is that the insurance companies closed down many plans. It is FALSE that they were forced to cancel plans. The only thing that could possibly do that is if they had a plan that never actually payed out.. And they could fix that. By, you know, actually covering the people they claimed they would.
  And guess what? Happened all the time BEFORE the law change. My insurance through my company changed 3 times in the last 8 years because the insurance company canceled the plan.
  He also said you could keep your doctor.. And you can.
  Of course, if your good friends and the insurance company decides to drop them from the network, as they did to me once, you would have to either get a different plan.. Or you know, pay out of pocket and be a 'responsible consumer'
72. Re:More government control, that's the ticket by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-16 10:24 · Score: 0
  
  Why do you lie?
  If the cost of your wife's medication went up why are you not talking about the company that makes it?
  Oh, wait... You don't mean that the COST went up... You mean that your insurance company no longer COVERS as much of the COST.
  I see...
  So, pick a better plan? Or, stop being a 'taker' and 'moocher' and stop being one of the lazy handout people and pay your own way. Just pay in cash.. You know. Dip into your 'fun' money to pay for it? Or sell one of your boats.
  Oh wait, you can't AFFORD to stay alive without the help of others (in your plan)..
  What a little leech your wife is. HOW DARE YOU use others money to keep your wife alive.
  If you don't have the money.. Die.
  Or.. you know.
  Maybe instead we are civilized people in a functioning country that has secular democratic institutions that are run for the well being and care of all people regardless of means.
  Maybe educate yourself on the entire healthcare problem and recognize that any steps to improve the situation do not have to solve all the problems with the system to still be good.
  You see now that we have the ACA you are free to change plans. Your wife's pre-existing condition no longer means that she wont be covered, and the removal of the caps now means that in 15 years, after decades of that medication (that costs WAY more than $5 or $60), going against your 'life time maximum', that if your wife gets cancer, or hit by a car, or whatever you won't find out 4 days into a 12 day hospital stay that.. Too bad so sad.. She reached her limit and you are just out of luck.. Go die in a ditch or go bankrupt and loose your house, car, retirement, everything. Because business needs the bucks, not sick fucks.
  And.. $60? Ha! Try having a pre-approved as covered drug be retroactively denied 'on further review' after you have been taking it for 8 months... And the full cost was $600 a month. True story.. I have others. The health insurance companies have been breaking contracts, promises, and lives for the last 20+ years. Any effort to provide LAW ENFORCEMENT to the business is a step in the right direction.
  Hell, until ACA your fucking GEICO car insurance was better regulated than health insurance in this country.
73. Re:More government control, that's the ticket by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-16 10:27 · Score: 0
  
  The Apollo program was a project, not an organization. It is not analogous to a design bureau. Nasa is still very much in operation.
74. Re:More government control, that's the ticket by khallow · 2014-05-16 10:42 · Score: 1
  
  The Apollo program was a project, not an organization.
  It was a thing which was done and which didn't lead to follow-on things. The Russians were and continue to be much better at developing stuff which is still used decades later.
  
  Nasa is still very much in operation.
  But it doesn't have the experience and most of the infrastructure of the Apollo and Space Shuttle eras.
75. Re:More government control, that's the ticket by sjames · 2014-05-16 12:47 · Score: 1
  
  As I understand it, it's mostly for faster service on elective procedures when money isn't an object.
76. Re:More government control, that's the ticket by shutdown+-p+now · 2014-05-16 13:01 · Score: 1
  
  What's the proportion of that "steady stream" to the overall population of Canada, though?
77. Re:More government control, that's the ticket by shutdown+-p+now · 2014-05-16 13:04 · Score: 1
  
  Not just the aerospace industry, but military in general. If you look at the history behind most new firearms of Soviet era, for example, the competition was fierce, and competitors plentiful. The contest between Tokarev and Simonov that went back and forth (AVS, SVT, SKS - with PTRS on the side) is one prominent example, but there are many others. Kalashnikov had plenty of competition, as well.
78. Re:More government control, that's the ticket by sideslash · 2014-05-16 13:47 · Score: 1
  
  Both the $5 and the $60 are out of pocket costs independent of insurance. Apparently you are unaware that the ACA precipitated a drastic cost increase in medical services and pharmaceuticals pretty much across the board. Unintended consequences and so forth.
79. Re:More government control, that's the ticket by sideslash · 2014-05-16 13:49 · Score: 1
  
  Nope, try again. Part of these sensible changes includes requiring 60 year old single men to have plans with maternity coverage -- which would NOT cover a significant other, so it really is as silly as it sounds.
80. Re:More government control, that's the ticket by sideslash · 2014-05-16 13:54 · Score: 1
  
  There were a lot of jokes made about socialized grocery stores in the Soviet era. It doesn't matter if they have guarantees about no favoritism based on personal wealth, or even if they have better quality and selection of groceries than the USA, if they only have 15 items to be distributed among a population of 300.
81. Re:More government control, that's the ticket by sjames · 2014-05-16 17:59 · Score: 1
  
  I thought we were discussing healthcare. and Canada vs U.S. What do anecdotes about the old (and dead) Soviet Union have to do with anything?
  Someone in need of healthcare is much better off being a Canadian.
82. Re:More government control, that's the ticket by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-16 22:22 · Score: 0
  
  Odd. Airlines come quickly to mind. What is the safest form of transportation today? Commercial Aircraft.
83. Re:More government control, that's the ticket by sideslash · 2014-05-17 02:41 · Score: 1
  
  I thought we were discussing healthcare. and Canada vs U.S. What do anecdotes about the old (and dead) Soviet Union have to do with anything?
  When the government steps in to mandate a socialist approach to what had been a free market, it turns out that you see the same kinds of patterns.
  
  Someone in need of healthcare is much better off being a Canadian.
  Nah. Somebody with money who needs an elective procedure is much better off being in the USA, where the wait time will be shorter.
  Somebody without money with a life threatening illness will probably be treated in either country.
  Somebody without money who needs an elective procedure may be better off in Canada, but it's not clear because they may also be denied it or have to wait forever (denial by default).
  
  In the meantime, it turns out that our medical professionals are compensated better. So where do you think the best doctors will want to work?
84. Re:More government control, that's the ticket by sjames · 2014-05-17 03:05 · Score: 1
  
  Funny you keep claiming that in spite of the evidence clearly showing that Canadians get higher quality care AND it costs less money (no, not just to the patient, but in total). So if socializing the market makes it more efficient, let's get the ball rolling.
  Canada doesn't seem to be losing doctors to the U.S. Perhaps Canadian doctors enjoy providing quality care rather than ticking a box or two and bankrupting people.
85. Re:More government control, that's the ticket by sideslash · 2014-05-17 03:08 · Score: 1
  
  I am not a sick person in Canada, so I don't have much personal knowledge of facts on the ground. I've heard (from Canadians I know) and read differing accounts. As in any massive system, the quality of your care probably depends on being in the right place at the right time with the right health problem. That goes for the US as well. There are some hospitals and medical practices that do a great job, and others that... don't...
86. Re:More government control, that's the ticket by Derek+Pomery · 2014-05-17 06:09 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, BTW, those 2 are pretty much same thing.
  Child mortality drives life expectancy waaaay down. Is like, countries where life expectancy is 30. Isn't like people die at 30. If you made it to 30, most of the time you'll make it to 70. Is just that so many kids die it drives down the average.
  There are calculations of life expectancy excluding under 3 or somesuch, but they are hard to find, and not as comprehensive.
  
  --
  -- perl -e'print pack"H*","6e656d6f406d38792e6f7267"' /. ate my old sig. Bastards.
87. Re: More government control, that's the ticket by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · 2014-05-17 16:23 · Score: 1
  
  Somehow, even though the actuaries would say you're right, the PR people would tell you you'd be a dead company. Today a billion dollar satellite explodes, the public doesn't really care. Tomorrow, when a school teacher dies with her students on a rocket, and if that company is found to be grossly liable, they're dead.
  
  --
  Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
88. Re:More government control, that's the ticket by NoImNotNineVolt · 2014-05-19 00:57 · Score: 1
  
  I know maternity coverage for men sounds crazy, much like AIDS coverage for celibate individuals who don't share needles, or transfusion coverage for Jehovah's Witnesses. Apparently you're new to the ideas of risk and risk pooling, and I'm afraid that an explanation of those is beyond the scope of a slashdot thread. Let's just say that the requirement for maternity coverage cannot alone explain the termination of any healthcare plans, since there's no prohibition against adding maternity coverage to plans that previously didn't offer any.
  
  --
  Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
89. Re:More government control, that's the ticket by sideslash · 2014-05-19 01:44 · Score: 1
  
  The original point being debated is whether Obama lied when he claimed that "if you like your plan, you can keep your plan" -- and while we're at it, "if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor". You already said you are inclined to give him a free pass on this. Words don't mean anything, right? Even the left-leaning political advocacy organization Politifact rated Obama's campaign promise as the "lie of the year" (but only after the election was safely won for the Democrats, mind you).
  
  Apparently you're new to the ideas of risk and risk pooling
  Oh, brother. Excuse me while I go barf. The only possible reason to disagree with the ACA would be out of ignorance, I'm sure. What luck that Obama and the Democratic party are here to rescue benighted America from the darkness of ignorance and backwardness.
  
  I understand that the ACA forces risk pooling among groups where it didn't exist before. So you're right -- no plan can be good if it doesn't force you as a healthy person to subsidize smoking, being overweight, and having kids, even if you do none of those things. News flash -- Obama still lied. If he hadn't repeated that lie so often, he might not have won reelection.
90. Re:More government control, that's the ticket by NoImNotNineVolt · 2014-05-19 02:21 · Score: 1
  
  The only possible reason to disagree with the ACA would be out of ignorance, I'm sure.
  You can't possibly think that's what I mean, since I myself openly stated that I think the ACA is shitty. There's countless reasons to disagree with the ACA. If the "if you like your plan, you can keep your plan" quote is your biggest problem with this legislation, then you're not looking too closely.
  
  News flash -- Obama still lied. If he hadn't repeated that lie so often, he might not have won reelection.
  News flash -- All politicians running for national office, both Democrat and Republican, do nothing but lie to gain or retain office. I never said Obama was an honest man, or that he kept his campaign promises. I merely pointed out that of all the things to point out as lies, the particular quote you're hung up on is relatively excusable. It's at least true in spirit to a large extent, since "if you like your plan [and your plan is not worthless, and your plan does not cripple risk pooling, and your plan continues to be profitable for your insurer, and your insurer remains solvent], you can keep your plan" would have actually been true (but too much of a mouthful to be a convenient sound byte). To get hung up that Obama didn't spell out the implied fine print regarding the ACA while overlooking his other failures and lies (say, his claims of heading the most transparent administration in American history while at the same time continuing to expand the opaque NSA surveillance apparatus) suggests you have no perspective regarding the magnitude of a lie.
  
  Also, I caution you to be wary of your Republican friends as well. Your tone betrays your critical stance regarding Democrats, which is healthy only if balanced. I hope that you don't cheerlead for their primary opposition with the best of intentions only to find yourself supporting what amounts to be the other side of the same coin. There were those independent voters who were so disgruntled with Bush's Republicans that they eventually became supporters of Obama's Democrats. It wasn't long before many of them realized that they had been fooled again.
  
  --
  Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
91. Re:More government control, that's the ticket by sideslash · 2014-05-19 02:35 · Score: 1
  
  You can't possibly think that's what I mean, since I myself openly stated that I think the ACA is shitty.
  No, I think I read your position pretty well. You're in favor of fully nationalized healthcare, taking the "for profit" companies out of the picture. As such, I would expect you to be cool with the ACA's less granular risk pooling and so forth. You're certainly entitled to your opinion.
  
  I merely pointed out that of all the things to point out as lies, the particular quote you're hung up on is relatively excusable.
  I agree that it's possible for such a statement to be "mostly true", but leave out the fine print. That's not really what happened in this case. As far as I can tell, the ACA forced most plans to be canceled, regardless of whether the holders of those plans "liked them". In fact, to the degree that people "liked" their plans, they were more likely to be forcibly closed by the ACA. People who hated paying for the expense of their risk pools (and thus hated their plans before) were those who benefitted from the ACA. When you add the missing fine print, the meaning changes into pretty much the opposite of what it meant before. Do you see that distinction? It was not a simplification, it was a lie.
92. Re:More government control, that's the ticket by NoImNotNineVolt · 2014-05-19 03:18 · Score: 1
  
  This is the best long thread I've had the pleasure of participating in on slashdot. So civil! So reasonable! Usually things would devolve to ad hominem attacks at this point. Instead, you treat me to "you're certainly entitled to your opinion." Refreshing!
  
  In any case, I concede that this "if you like your plan" quote is misleading at best. Deliberately so, if I had to guess. Perhaps the context in which I heard it made me more willing to overlook the bullshit quotient that characterizes it. At the time Obama made this statement, the national dialog consisted in part of "death panel" alarmism and allegations of a federal takeover of healthcare services. I took Obama's words to be little more than a reassurance that while yes, things would be changing, no, people's worst fears were unfounded. In that context, under such an interpretation, his lie was a small one. However, it's not fair of me to assume that everyone interpreted his statement the same way I did. My sympathies go out to those that put their faith in Obama and took his words at face value only to be surprised by the very real disappearance of their insurance policies.
  
  Conversely, the policy offered to me by my employer was also discontinued (due to the ACA, I was told). However, it was replaced by one that's virtually indistinguishable. If my experience isn't unique, and many policies were similarly discontinued (due to the ACA) but replaced by nearly-identical ones, that would mean that Obama's words were technically false. However, if that were the extent of the negative impact of the ACA (and I'm not suggesting that it is, merely pointing out how it could be perceived as such), would it really be worth all this commotion? Perhaps people that find themselves in a position similar to mine dismiss this entire dialog outright because they don't believe that people are actually losing coverage in any meaningful sense. I can at least speak for myself and say that I don't know how many people have truly been impacted by this legislation. There's a lot of contradictory and extreme claims coming from both sides of the debate, many of which are literally incredible. It's not even easy to trust "pure" statistics in such an environment. After all, even if everyone's insurance had been affected exactly the same way as mine (technically discontinued, but actually replaced by an indistinguishable one), statistics could be produced to suggest a 100% total elimination of the pre-ACA health insurance regime. In a climate where both sides are more interested in winning the debate more than arriving at a well-informed comprimise, is it any surprise that independent-minded people are hesitant to buy into any of this shit?
  
  In any case, I grant that I'm too willing to forgive Obama on this point. I suppose that it's in large part because I've found his other failures to be so egregious that I feel that I can't be troubled to get worked up about what (to me) amounts to a molehill in comparison.
  
  --
  Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
93. Re:More government control, that's the ticket by sideslash · 2014-05-19 03:30 · Score: 1
  
  This is the best long thread I've had the pleasure of participating in on slashdot. So civil! So reasonable! Usually things would devolve to ad hominem attacks at this point. Instead, you treat me to "you're certainly entitled to your opinion." Refreshing!
  I've enjoyed the exchange as well. Cheers!
94. Re:More government control, that's the ticket by rezme · 2014-05-19 06:29 · Score: 1
  
  Plastic surgery...
95. Re:More government control, that's the ticket by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-20 01:59 · Score: 0
  
  It was a thing which was done and which didn't lead to follow-on things.
  Not him, but Apollo did lead to follow-on things, just not space related things. The Apollo program was politically motivated as much as it was scientifically motivated. Apollo achieved its political goal of uniting the US and "beating" the Commies at something. This is followed up with more government expansion.
  This has continued to this day. Outside of libertarian circles (a vocal minority), most Americans still believe in their government and that expanding it is the answer, voting for the same two parties over and over.
96. Re:More government control, that's the ticket by Derek+Pomery · 2014-05-20 03:39 · Score: 1
  
  BTW, the caveats on health habits, immigrant populations, rural areas inaccessible to doctors in the US etc, France has a stillbirth rate twice that of the US. That's probably related to lack of extraordinary efforts for preemies.
  
  --
  -- perl -e'print pack"H*","6e656d6f406d38792e6f7267"' /. ate my old sig. Bastards.
at least they are trying. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-16 01:35 · Score: 0

The Russians do "Muslim outreach" via BTR-80 instead of with their space programs.
Read that ITAR-TASS article. That's a LOT of stuff the Russians have going on. They "DO WORK" when it comes to space. WTF are WE doing? Sitting around, remembering the good-old-days while NASA fine-tunes its diversity statement.
Also, I am sad that the rocket in question is not in fact propelled by directed proton emissions.
1. Re:at least they are trying. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-16 01:39 · Score: 0
  
  Which "we" are you talking about? If the US government, "we" are making sure that Shuttle era pork spending can continue in the same congressional districts even after the Shuttle is gone! MURRICA!
2. Re:at least they are trying. by Teresita · 2014-05-16 01:40 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  They "DO WORK" when it comes to space. WTF are WE doing? Sitting around, remembering the good-old-days while NASA fine-tunes its diversity statement.
  
  Meanwhile the USA is building up quite a portfolio of images from the surface of Mars and shit. Russia's got a gig driving a space limousine.
3. Re:at least they are trying. by bobbied · 2014-05-16 02:44 · Score: 2
  
  They "DO WORK" when it comes to space. WTF are WE doing? Sitting around, remembering the good-old-days while NASA fine-tunes its diversity statement. Meanwhile the USA is building up quite a portfolio of images from the surface of Mars and shit. Russia's got a gig driving a space limousine.
  Not a limousine, I'd call it more of a small truck, like a Ford ranger king cab with a manual transmission and a 4 cylinder engine. Crude way to travel, but if it's the only ride that stops when your thumb is out, you are just happy not to be walking or riding in the cargo bay.
  
  --
  "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Go SpaceX! by Katatsumuri · 2014-05-16 01:46 · Score: 1

I wish that every launch was a success, and that humanity expanded into space faster. But the recent issues come just in time to help SpaceX win the much needed first contracts. They only need to finish their man rating and first stage return, and they are golden.
1. Re:Go SpaceX! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-16 02:49 · Score: 0
  
  Someone needs to do a bit of reading!
  http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the...
  "Humanity" eh? In a thread full of knee-jerk "us vs. them" childish paranoia?
Russian lift platform crashes by Chas · 2014-05-16 01:46 · Score: 5, Funny

Russia: Maybe you should use trampoline to get into space.
*BOOM*
America: You know what Yuri? That sounds like a damn smart decision!

--

Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
1. Re:Russian lift platform crashes by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-16 07:41 · Score: 0
  
  Dmitry, not Yuri. First Cosmonaut was Yuri.
Someone by heezer7 · 2014-05-16 01:52 · Score: 2

is going to Siberia.
1. Re:Someone by jratcliffe · 2014-05-16 04:15 · Score: 2
  
  is going to Siberia.
  They're already in Baikonur, so Siberia wouldn't be a huge downgrade.
2. Re:Someone by k6mfw · 2014-05-16 04:17 · Score: 1
  
  is going to Siberia.
  maybe they should start practicing this dance routine, https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
  
  --
  mfwright@batnet.com
Different problem by Dan+East · 2014-05-16 01:52 · Score: 5, Interesting

Last year's failure occurred immediately - it was clear there was a major issue with one of the first stage engines from ignition. This latest failure was in the third stage. That's actually worse, because it's showing problems across the board with different engines in different stages, which would be because of totally unrelated issues. Sounds like either fundamental engineering issues or major quality and control problems (probably the latter).

--
Better known as 318230.
1. Re:Different problem by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-16 02:04 · Score: 0
  
  due to insufficient quality of blessing by cosmodrom's priest rocket smashed into empyrean
2. Re:Different problem by DerekLyons · 2014-05-16 03:15 · Score: 2
  
  Last year's failure occurred immediately - it was clear there was a major issue with one of the first stage engines from ignition.
  Not to anyone with any actual knowledge of rocketry - to them it was clear there was a major problem with the guidance and control systems. (Which in fact turned out to be the case.)
3. Re:Different problem by pushing-robot · 2014-05-16 03:35 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  They're claiming the rocket malfunctioned after entering a region of intense gay-waves emitted from western Europe.
  I should probably stop watching Russian news.
  
  --
  How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
4. Re:Different problem by technology_dude · 2014-05-16 04:41 · Score: 1
  
  Wonder if they had any Siemens equipment installed? :)
5. Re:Different problem by SLot · 2014-05-16 05:29 · Score: 1
  
  I wish I had mod points. This had me laughing out loud.
Elon should launch for Baikonur by Thagg · 2014-05-16 01:53 · Score: 2

After all, the first stage could land safely in the uninhabited steppe to the east.

--
I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
1. Re:Elon should launch for Baikonur by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 01:47 · Score: 0
  
  Makes sense. It's a bad idea for the major players (ULA, Arianespace), because the lucrative geostationary orbit is hard to reach from Baikonur (too far North). But the ISS is in a highly inclined orbit exactly because of Baikonur. You just have to wait until it passes overhead.
Shadenfreude by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-16 01:55 · Score: 0

Couldn't happen to a nicer country.
in soviet russia by Joe_Dragon · 2014-05-16 01:58 · Score: 1

in soviet Russia we crash your rocket!
1. Re:in soviet russia by robinsonne · 2014-05-16 02:06 · Score: 1
  
  In theoretically-democratic Russia, Russian rocket crash jokes tell you!
2. Re:in soviet russia by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-16 02:06 · Score: 0
  
  No, in Soviet Russia, the rocket crashes YOU.
Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-16 02:00 · Score: 0

What goes up.. must come down!
Vodka by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-16 02:01 · Score: 0

We drinks too much vodka Fridays! Or not enough Mondays!
Re:Could this be by ScudBee · 2014-05-16 02:02 · Score: 1

Oh right, everything that's failing in Russia (and that's just less than EVERYTHING), fails because of American sabotage...
Channeling Joe Pesci by Smerta · 2014-05-16 02:28 · Score: 1

CIA: "Hey Putin, nice rocket you got there. Sure would be shame if something happened to it in flight."
Re:Could this be by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-16 02:30 · Score: 0

'cause what you see you might not get
And we can bet so don't you get souped yet
You're scheming on a thing that's a mirage
I'm trying to tell you now it's sabotage
A little more to the story... by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · 2014-05-16 02:32 · Score: 1

The telecommunications satellite that blowed up was the Astrium (Airbus) Express AM4R, which was to have replaced the Express AM4, which was lost (injected into the wrong orbit) in August 2011.
1. Re:A little more to the story... by bobbied · 2014-05-16 02:53 · Score: 1
  
  The telecommunications satellite that blowed up was the Astrium (Airbus) Express AM4R, which was to have replaced the Express AM4, which was lost (injected into the wrong orbit) in August 2011.
  So they've done nearly the same thing before? Wow.
  So are we *sure* the Russians are really launching these things and not just hiding them away for their use later?
  
  --
  "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
2. Re:A little more to the story... by 3.5+stripes · 2014-05-16 03:17 · Score: 1
  
  Well, they are for Russian usage, so probably no.
  
  --
  
  He tried to kill me with a forklift!
Re:Could this be by bobbied · 2014-05-16 02:47 · Score: 1

American sabotage?
LOL
Like everything bad that happens in Russia is due to the Americans... Um, I hate to say it but they have enough home grown issues to account for this. In fact the cold war loss was more about internal issues than anything else...

--
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Russia never upgrades by gman003 · 2014-05-16 03:04 · Score: 4, Insightful

It's amazing to me just how ancient most Russian rocket designs are. The Soyuz launcher is literally based on the same design that launched Sputnik, with the addition of a second stage. And even after fifty years of iteration, they still have only a 97.5% success rate with the current Soyuz launchers (Soyuz-U, Soyuz-U2, and Soyuz-FG). That's a full point worse than the Space Shuttle (98.5%), which was a completely new design that didn't have several decades of production testing on basically any of the parts.
Proton is almost as old, dating back to the Soviet lunar program. It was actually first intended as an ICBM, to launch ridiculously heavy warheads (think Tsar Bomba on an ICBM). The changes since then have been fairly minimal, compared to the design changes American rockets went through. One of the biggest features of the latest Proton-M design is "uses less parts made outside Russia". Counting this latest failure, Proton-M has only an 88.9% success rate.
The oft-repeated engineering mantra is "quality, reliability, cost - pick two". Russia's antiquated designs don't give you quality (in terms of efficiency or even lifting power), and they really aren't as reliable as you'd expect from such well-established designs. I can only hope that they're cheap enough that it's worth it - and when you're launching multi-million-dollar satellites, maybe cheaping out on the launcher isn't such a good idea.
1. Re:Russia never upgrades by msauve · 2014-05-16 03:59 · Score: 1
  
  The oft-repeated engineering mantra is "quality, reliability, cost - pick two".
  What does one give up if they pick reliability and (low) cost? If you can have high reliability without quality, what exactly constitutes "quality," and what does it matter?
  
  --
  "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
2. Re:Russia never upgrades by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-16 04:14 · Score: 1
  
  It's supposed to be "good, fast, cheap - pick 2".
3. Re:Russia never upgrades by jratcliffe · 2014-05-16 04:24 · Score: 1
  
  The oft-repeated engineering mantra is "quality, reliability, cost - pick two".
  What does one give up if they pick reliability and (low) cost? If you can have high reliability without quality, what exactly constitutes "quality," and what does it matter?
  As gman003 noted, quality can include "efficiency or even lifting power." If you let me set the quality metric as "can lift zero kg zero meters off the ground," I can build you a rocket that will do that 100% of the time, and very cheaply.
4. Re:Russia never upgrades by cellocgw · 2014-05-16 04:37 · Score: 1
  
  The oft-repeated engineering mantra is "quality, reliability, cost - pick two".
  Make that the "oft-misremembered..."
  The proper 3 ingredients are
  1) quality
  2) time to develop/deliver
  3)Cost
  (obligatory)
  4)...
  5) Profit!
  
  --
  https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
5. Re:Russia never upgrades by cheesybagel · 2014-05-16 07:47 · Score: 1
  
  Soyuz now uses digital avionics as well. Besides it is supposed to get engine upgrades in the near future.
6. Re:Russia never upgrades by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-16 08:43 · Score: 0
  
  ITs already rumored spaceX beats them right now on price to orbit, as merlin's are cheaper to build then proton's. This may hurt the Russian space program immensely.
  Maybe putin should throw some of his cash into the pot and get a new rocket designed using 21st century technology, instead of dragging around refuse from half a century ago.
7. Re:Russia never upgrades by gman003 · 2014-05-16 09:25 · Score: 1
  
  As much as I like SpaceX, a) they're far too new to compare on reliability, and b) they don't have anything comparable to Proton in lift capacity. Proton-M can lift 22Mg to LEO - over twice the capacity of a Falcon-9, closer to two-and-a-half when you count usable capacity (the landing/reuse feature requires most of their extra power from the v1.1 upgrade). The Falcon Heavy is supposed to lift 53Mg, but they haven't even built one yet, let alone flown one.
8. Re:Russia never upgrades by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-16 10:20 · Score: 0
  
  It's amazing to me just how ancient most Russian rocket designs are.
  NK-33, was designed in 60s, is still the most efficient engine, is the second highest thrust-to-weight ratio, behinds in-experimental Merlin 1-D, but still better than in term of energy efficient, or throttleable.
  
  The Soyuz launcher is literally based on the same design that launched Sputnik, with the addition of a second stage. And even after fifty years of iteration, they still have only a 97.5% success rate with the current Soyuz launchers (Soyuz-U, Soyuz-U2, and Soyuz-FG). That's a full point worse than the Space Shuttle (98.5%), which was a completely new design that didn't have several decades of production testing on basically any of the parts.
  If it's not broken, don't fix it.
  In fact, about 40 years, Soyuz has not has problem. And only 2 missions in the first 10 flights had died cosmonauts.
  While, base on the failures, Soyuz has achieved ideas for safety system for Soyuz:
  http://www.russianspaceweb.com/soyuz_sas.html
  the Space Shuttle have some critical safety in the original design, that can not fixed, what I have seen on Discovery channel:
  the Shuttle, that carries humans, is right on the side of the missile:
  a) if the missile explodes, there no chance for survival.
  b) when lift-on, there huge amount of materials, incredible impulse that can cause the Shuttle be damaged.
  When Shuttle return to the Earth's atmosphere, it's really tutored by extreme temperature and impulse, again.
  Beside that, Soyuz can be modified to be unmanned Progress. Of course, cost efficiency.
  While you use statistic to back your claim, in theory, Space Shuttle has more components than Soyuz, rephrase, Soyuz is simpler than Shuttle, it's likely more reliable.
  
  Russia's antiquated designs don't give you quality (in terms of efficiency or even lifting power), and they really aren't as reliable as you'd expect from such well-established designs. I can only hope that they're cheap enough that it's worth it - and when you're launching multi-million-dollar satellites, maybe cheaping out on the launcher isn't such a good idea.
  Like said above, NK-33, or RD-180, was designed long before, still among the top notch class, if not the best engine, in term of efficiency AND lifting power, PLUS, they are cheaper.
9. Re:Russia never upgrades by shutdown+-p+now · 2014-05-16 13:10 · Score: 1
  
  As far as reliability goes, here's the fun fact: if you look at the last decade, and count the success/failure rate for the launches, the results are kinda funny. Here are the stats for 2001-2013:
  Russia: 346 successful launches, 18 failures
  USA: 231 successful launch, 9 failures
  China: 126 successful launches, 4 failures
  In other words, Chinese seem to be doing best at this game.
10. Re:Russia never upgrades by gman003 · 2014-05-16 15:28 · Score: 1
  
  While you use statistic to back your claim, in theory, Space Shuttle has more components than Soyuz, rephrase, Soyuz is simpler than Shuttle, it's likely more reliable.
  I had written up a rather lengthy rebuttal to most of your points, but then I noticed this gem hidden near the end.
  You are literally claiming that it doesn't matter what the facts are, your theory says Soyuz is more reliable than the Shuttle was, therefore reality is wrong and you're right.
  I can't argue with that - not because you're right, but because I can only argue using facts and logic, which evidently you want nothing to do with.
11. Re:Russia never upgrades by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 07:45 · Score: 0
  
  You are literally claiming that it doesn't matter what the facts are, your theory says Soyuz is more reliable than the Shuttle was, therefore reality is wrong and you're right.
  I can't argue with that - not because you're right, but because I can only argue using facts and logic, which evidently you want nothing to do with.
  It seems that you have read nothing but the last 'gem' phrase. I think I wasted my time.
  What fact, mostly death failures were the 2 of the first 10 missions, and from these failures Soyuz has become the most reliable. Shuttle safety design was failed at the beginning and not fixable. You use **plain simple** statistic numbers, of course, cannot present "the fact".
  If Shuttle would be flied again, it would has deathly accident, it's matter of time.
Sabotage by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-16 03:31 · Score: 0

most likely caused by external interference with the vehicle's electrical systems. The amount and severity of these failures are sudden and abnormal.
On the other hand there's this near miss. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-16 03:54 · Score: 1

Two Weeks Ago, I Almost Died in the Deadliest Plane Crash Ever
Shot Down by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-16 04:05 · Score: 0

Just what is the little white dot that enters from the right (moving left) of the screen and arriving at the rocket precisely when it explodes? The white dot seems to then proceed rightward. Look for the object at 0:47 (approximately 90 degrees/center-right screen) of the video until you see it – it's definitely odd: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrnOnnzYLU4
Maybe they should just by MouseTheLuckyDog · 2014-05-16 04:31 · Score: 1

...use trampolines.
Check out the Exhaust Trail by bill_mcgonigle · 2014-05-16 04:46 · Score: 1

Starting at about 1:30 the exhaust trail starts to waver a bit, and over the next fifteen seconds it becomes really wild (just before the craft disintegrates). You have to watch before that to compare.
I wonder how many bolts need to break to cause an engine to shear off or shake the thing apart?

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Proton M explosion video by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-16 05:45 · Score: 0

YouTube has a video of the launch and explosion posted now. With 1:14 remaining on the 2 minute video, a small object can be seen moving right to left at the viewer's 3 o'clock position. Exhaust dischage changes almost immediately, ending with the explosion. Video anomaly or something else?
Sad, really. by asylumx · 2014-05-16 05:53 · Score: 2

I find this sad because it's one of the sole means we, as a species, have of exploring the next frontier right now. Any time a space launch fails, regardless of who launched it, it sets us all back. The silver lining is, perhaps we can all learn from whatever happened, and hopefully the next launch will be more successful no matter within whose borders it launches.
Re:Could this be by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-16 06:46 · Score: 0

It it funny to see people who themselves see Russian sabotage in everything, complain about the perceved Russian paranoia. In the meanwhile, Russian do have legitimate greivances about the West.
On an unrelated note, it is amusing to read comments about complex engineering issues coming from scipt kiddies who do `web design' ... while teaching future `engineers' who have barely mastered arithmetic after a year in college. Right, here in America, we replace calculus with `creativity'.
Be concerned with your own achievements before gloating about other's failures.
New Launch Vehicle Needed by The+Other+White+Meat · 2014-05-16 07:00 · Score: 1

I suggest we send them a trampoline.

--

--- Generation X: The first generation to have SIG lines inferior to their parents... ---
Lest we forget... by BertChadick · 2014-05-16 07:39 · Score: 1

Private space programs are fine and dandy, but who did all the research and design that made those free enterprise spacecraft possible? I believe a lot of the X Prize entrants relied on surplus military hardware to get off the ground. Go to the stars, businessmen, but don't forget who paid the upfront costs and buys your product. Ingrates.
Re:Could this be by kaatochacha · 2014-05-16 10:46 · Score: 1

Who sees Russian Sabotage in anything anymore? I haven't heard that statement in years, except for possibly in the recent Ukrainian blowup. Where, since Ukraine is right next to Russia and has/had one of it's main seaports, and photos show Russian commandos running around without identifying badges, seems a reasonable suspicion.
Plus, regardless of what everyone thinks: Sucks that the rocket went down, everyone should hate watching attempts like this fail.
Now we know how long... by beady.el7512 · 2014-05-16 11:25 · Score: 0

...it takes for a Proton to decay.
Holy radar weapon Batman!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 11:11 · Score: 0

This is great Russia. Now you'll blame this on the U.S. radar weapon that supposedly downed your Mars mission. All this because the U.S. is so mad about Putin grabbing little old Crimea. I'm sure with the right spin the Russian media can whip the populace into a froth mouthed frenzy! Putin and his KGB government are really good at this sort of propaganda.