Just about everybody of a certain age remembers “The Jetsons,” a cartoon show from the 1960s that speculated on what life might be in the space age future, with people living and working in orbiting satellites that they access by personal spacecars, with just about every function of life automated to button-controlled devices and family robots. And it’s become a kind of cultural touchstone for commentators like this one to look at where we are today with technology, and scoff, “Sure doesn’t look like we’re going to be living like the Jetsons any time soon, ha ha.”

Related Article: Space: Cargo’s Final Frontier

However, though it’s not exactly what George Jetson and his futuristic family were familiar with, a new vehicle, the Transition Street-Legal Airplane, has had what its developer, Terrafugia Inc., says was a successful first flight. As the company describes it, the Transition “is a two seat personal aircraft capable of driving on roads and highways, parking in a single car garage, and flying with unleaded automotive fuel.”

Since the Transition relies on the driver/pilot using the highways to get to the airport, it’s not clear whether a community of these flying cars would see any relief in highway congestion, nor do we get a sense of how clogged the skies would be should these sorts of things prove to be popular. No doubt, the Department of Transportation will need to create some more agencies to figure all that out, should the circumstances warrant it.

Here’s a video released by Terrafugia showing the test flight. I’m not sure I’d want to be driving one of those things on the highway, considering what the blind spots on this vehicle might be like. I’m also a bit dismayed that the video doesn’t actually show the flying car lift off at the airport, which ought to be the highlight of this whole video. I was impressed, though, that the Transition apparently fits in a regular garage; no need to rent hangar space down at the airport. Anyways, take a look and see what you think.

High-tech giant Apple has long had a love/hate relationship with its customers and suppliers. The company loves to publicize how popular its products are with its customers, who are nothing if not rabidly passionate about everything-Apple. However, the company also hates to publicize exactly who makes it products, since that information tends to raise uncomfortable questions, such as: Why does the classic American success story offshore its manufacturing to Chinese factories where suicides, slave labor and environmental abuses have been documented?

Yes, Apple frequently shows up on lists of the most popular, most trusted or most valuable companies, largely because its best-known products have a perceived cachet to them that competitive products simply do not have. Most recently, Interbrands positioned Apple as number 8 in its list of the Best Global Brands of 2011, a jump of 9 spots from its position a year ago, one of the biggest upward moves among the top 100 brands; Amazon climbed 10 spots, but that put it no higher than number 26. (For the record, by the way, the top 7 spots remain unchanged from 2010, with Coke still on top. For Apple to move into the top 10, obviously somebody had to drop out, and that company is Nokia, which has its own problems, as noted here.)

Despite the numerous accolades, Apple has seen its image tarnished through nobody’s fault but its own, namely, the way it manages (or mismanages) its overseas suppliers. Apple released its 2012 Supplier Responsibility progress report just before the long holiday weekend (a time when companies typically announce unflattering news, hoping it’ll get buried), which among other things paints a not-so-rosy picture of labor conditions throughout the Chinese plants that manufacture iPhones, iPads and other high-tech devices for Apple. The company also released a list of its major offshore suppliers.

There’s some thought that Apple, as well as other California-based electronics companies, has been more-or-less dragged kicking and screaming into revealing the practices of its suppliers. For instance, on New Year’s Day, the California Transparency in Supply Chains Act went into effect, which requires all companies with sales of $100 million or more and that do business in the state to publicly disclose what they’re doing to ensure their global supply chains do not in any way support or enable slave labor or human trafficking. Among other things, companies must now comply with various audits of their vendors and suppliers, and publicize their efforts on their websites. Which is what Apple has done, warts and all.

According to Apple’s progress report, almost two-thirds (62%) of the suppliers that it uses do not comply with Apple’s limit of 60 hours per week in the factory, with at least one day of rest per seven days. “Working hours is a complex issue,” Apple CEO Tim Cook told the Wall Street Journal, adding that he is confident that by monitoring its suppliers’ plants at a “very, very micro level,” Apple will be able to improve the situation.

More than a third (35%) of the suppliers do not meet Apple’s standards for workplace safety, the report notes, and nearly a third (32%) are not in compliance with Apple’s hazmat management practices.

The WSJ also notes that “the supplier report could pique Chinese authorities, who have long sought to stem criticism and limit disclosures about business practices there.” And indeed, Foxconn, one of the most notorious Chinese suppliers, is cited several times in Apple’s reports for various infractions, such as a combustible dust explosion that killed four people and injured 18.

To diminish any suggestion that Apple’s global standards are somewhat, well, sub-standard, the company has joined the Fair Labor Association as an associate member, the first high-tech company to do so. In a press release, it was announced that “the FLA will independently assess facilities in Apple’s supply chain and report detailed findings on the FLA website.” However, the FLA has been criticized in the past for receiving funding from companies it monitors, which of course would be a conflict of interest. So Apple would do well to increase its transparency to its stakeholders beyond the disclosures it has no choice but to release.

In a compromise decision that nobody seems to be happy about, the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) announced its revised hours of service rules for commercial truck drivers. In a move that illustrates how little attention the FMCSA wanted from its ruling, the announcement was made just prior to the long Christmas holiday break, when most offices were scheduled to be closed.

It’s difficult to imagine how the FMCSA could have managed to satisfy nobody, but that looks to be exactly what’s happened. The new rule reduces the maximum number of hours a truck driver can work from 82 hours within a seven-day period to 70 hours. By removing 12 hours from the work week, the FMCSA angered many of the shipping organizations, who are complaining that the rules will effectively force more trucks on the road during the busiest hours of the day. On the other hand, the final rule retains the current 11-hour daily driving limit, which has safety groups upset because for them reducing the 11-hour limit down to 10 was a must-have stipulation.

Daphne Izer, co-founder of Parents Against Tired Truckers (P.A.T.T.), doesn’t mince words when expressing her disapproval of the new rules. “I am beyond disappointed that once again industry profits were put before the safety of the motoring public and truck drivers. I don’t know what it is going to take for the government to get real about protecting us on our roads.”

John Cutler, legal counsel for NASSTRAC, an industry association that represents the interests of freight shippers in all modes of transportation, disputes any suggestion that shippers will be seeing any positive gain from the new rules; quite the opposite, he says. “FMCSA’s new rules will adversely impact productivity for trucking companies and their shipper customers for little or no safety benefit,” Cutler says.

Small truckers aren’t happy with the changes, either. “Collectively, the changes in this rule will have a dramatic effect on the lives and livelihoods of small-business truckers. The changes are unnecessary and unwelcome and will result in no significant safety gains,” says Todd Spencer, executive vice president of the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA).

“By forcing through these changes FMCSA has created a situation that will ultimately please no one, with the likely exception of organized labor,” adds Dan England, chairman of the American Trucking Associations (ATA) as well as trucking company C.R. England.

But not even the Teamsters seem to be particularly pleased with the new rules. James P. Hoffa, president of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, basically had nothing to say about the rule changes, other than to acknowledge their existence. “We are reviewing the new rule, and in the coming weeks we will meet and discuss it with our allies and, if necessary, determine our next course of action.” Not exactly a ringing endorsement from one of the Obama Administration’s most vocal allies.

England sums up the situation thusly: “Both the trucking industry and consumers will suffer the impact of reduced productivity and higher costs,” he claims. “Also, groups that have historically been critical of the current hours of service rules won’t be happy since they will have once again failed to obtain an unjustified reduction in allowable daily driving time. Further, it is entirely possible that these changes may actually increase truck-involved crashes by forcing trucks to have more interaction with passenger vehicles and increasing the risk to all drivers.”

According to the FMCSA, the new rule will require truck drivers to take at least two nights’ rest between the hours of 1:00 a.m. to 5:00 a.m, as part of the 34-hour restart provision. But as Cutler points out, “The effect is that down time due to restarts will increase significantly, and many drivers will start driving on Monday mornings, forcing thousands of trucks onto our roadways in rush hour and dramatically increasing traffic congestion.” Drivers can only use the restart provision once during a seven-day period.

So does anybody have anything good to say about the new rules? “If there is a positive in this rule, it is the lengthy period of time before it becomes effective,” says Bill Graves, president and CEO of the ATA, pointing to the compliance date of July 1, 2013, set by the FMCSA. This 18-month delay, Graves says, will give ATA time to consider legal options. And, by delaying implementation of this rule, the agency is acknowledging there is no safety crisis on our highways.”

And by July 2013, there could very well be a new Administration in the White House, and presumably, new leadership at the FMCSA. And that could very well lead to even more changes in the hours of service rules.

Related Articles:

Retailers: Hours of Service Decision a Mixed Blessing

Hours of Service Debate Goes into Overtime

One of the most popular blogs ever posted to this site featured the story of two hippopotamuses being moved from one end of the Philadelphia Zoo to another. But as well received as that story was, we knew you wanted more. As impressive as the hippo story was, it was basically self-contained.

As the follow-up to that first in our occasional series of “Extreme Logistics” adventures, this time out we’ve got international intrigue aplenty, as the story begins in Chengdu, China, home of Tian Tian (aka Sweetie) and Yang Guang (aka Sunshine), two giant pandas, and ends in Edinburgh, Scotland. We’ve got material handling (the video in fact begins aboard a lift truck), we’ve got packaging (customized containers for the pandas), we’ve got transportation both domestic (full-length trucks and express delivery vehicles) and international (the flight of the FedEx Panda Express). And we’ve got a spell-binding plotline, as the first video below ends on a note of intrigue.

Best of all [SPOILER ALERT], we’ve got a heart-warming happy ending courtesy of the second video. Enjoy.

Sometimes people come to the blog area of MH&L to read hard-hitting commentaries on various political and workforce issues affecting those who work in material handling and logistics. And then sometimes they come because where else can you go to see a video of live hippopotamuses (hippopatami?) being moved via forklift from one end of a zoo to another?

Here are the details, courtesy of Toyota Material Handling U.S.A.:

Two hippos at the Philadelphia Zoo — Cindy and Unna — were transported in a large crate: 15′ long x 5′ wide x 7″ high. After getting the hippos into the crate, some of which you’ll see in the video, they were moved via a large capacity Toyota lift truck, supplied by United Rentals.

So now that you’ve got the basic setup, here’s the video payoff of “Hippos on the Move”:

Do you trust your boss? If so, you’re in the distinct minority, according to a recent workforce study conducted by Kenexa titled Trust Matters. According to the study, 28% of all employees polled say they actively distrust their boss, and another 24% aren’t sure if they trust their boss or not. Only 48% say they trust their boss.

Some of these studies, to be fair, poll such a small sample that the results are highly inconclusive, but Kenexa based its findings on a survey of more than 10,000 U.S. employees, plus another 1,000 globally.

According to Jack Wiley, founder and executive director of the Kenexa High Performance Institute, “These significant levels of distrust demand attention from HR professionals, as they have clear implications for employee retention and well-being, as well as organizational performance.”

I’d go a big step further than just alerting the HR department that there’s a problem. I’d find out who these untrustworthy bosses are, why their employees find their behavior so undependable, and right the ship before an epidemic of bad bosses sinks the company.

Kenexa’s study indicates that employees who distrust their leaders are seven times more likely to report they are mentally and physically unwell, and almost half of employees who distrust their leaders are seriously considering leaving their employer. And who could blame them? Bad economy or not, if you’re working for a boss that simply cannot be trusted to conduct himself or herself in an honest and forthright matter, why would you stick around? If raises and promotions are always promised but never delivered, if downsizing is a constant occurrence at your company, if the boss is perceived to be somewhat shady or even blatantly incompetent – in short, if you feel like you’re stuck in a “Dilbert” comic strip, then the law of diminishing returns seems to suggest that the sooner you move on, then the sooner your mental and physical health will start improving.

Robert Hurley, a Fordham University professor as well as a consultant, addresses this problem in his new book, The Decision to Trust. Although Hurley is writing more for managers than employees, he also points out how devious scoundrels (e.g., Bernie Madoff) can manipulate situations so that they can appear to be trustful when in reality they’re the exact opposite. So it’s important to understand exactly how easy it is for a thoroughly untrustworthy person to talk out of both sides of their mouths, slapping you on the back with one hand while they pick your pocket with the other.

Assuming that only highly ethical and reliable managers ever come to the MH&L website, following are five best practices Hurley recommends for bosses who not only want their employees to trust them, but are willing to go the extra mile to actually earn their trust:

1. Align your interests with those whose trust you want. You have to earn your employees’ trust, and the best way to do that is to prove it by promoting their interests in a fair manner.

2. Demonstrate benevolent concern. If your employees sense that you’re only in it for yourself, and that furthering your own career takes precedence over everything else, then nobody is going to trust you.

3. Develop and demonstrate capability in the matter at hand. If you can’t make good on your commitments, it’s better not to make them at all because your employees will stop believing you’ll ever come through for them.

4. Create a track record of predictability and integrity. What motivates you to do the right thing? Do your employees respect you? Do you live by an unwavering code of honor?

5. Communicate, communicate, communicate… and do it clearly and openly.

The expression “that’s a stretch” usually gets applied to statements or conclusions that are built on faulty premises. So how do you best describe a weakly supported conclusion about the very act of stretching? A stretch about stretching?

There are plenty of special interest groups that will trot out some study or another that will tell you there are many benefits to indulging in something that’s not really good for you, whether it be liquor, coffee, chocolate or some other vice. But it’s rare when somebody will cite a study that says something good for you is actually not so good for you. There’s always a reason, though, once you connect all the dots.

Case in point: Humantech, a consulting firm specializing in ergonomics, has done a study that suggests that the cost of a stretching program for a medium-sized plant could cost a company roughly $400 thousand to $1.4 million dollar per year. “Wow,” you might think, “that’s a lot of money. I never realized that companies had to invest in that much equipment to support a stretching program.”

Actually, those costs don’t involve any capital outlays at all; the costs reflect the amount of lost work time – between 18 to 63 minutes per employee per week (or between 3-12 minutes per day), assuming 1,000 employees spread over three shifts.

So what we’re actually talking about is a period of time so small as to be virtually insignificant. If you took the time to analyze how you spent every minute of your workday, you’d probably find there are many moments that no actual activity takes place. The Wall Street Journal, for instance, recently studied exactly how much time Mariano Rivera, one of the greatest relief pitchers in the history of baseball, spent actually throwing the ball toward home plate. In 17 seasons with the Yankees, during which time he established the current record for most career saves, he has spent only eight hours and 50 minutes pitching, an amount that represents 0.1% of the elapses game time of his career.

The point being: You can run the “productivity” numbers any which way you’d like and find that significant amounts of time are being “wasted” (Rivera, according to the WSJ estimates, has spent 97% of his career not pitching), but you’d be fooling yourself if you think time spent in one activity would automatically be time gained in another if you eliminated the first activity.

As far as the stretching study goes, there’s an obvious but unasked question: What would happen if the employees didn’t stretch? If the program helps just one employee get through the day without developing a leg cramp or other condition that might lead to a missed day of work, then the program has already paid for itself.

Now, I could cynically mention Humantech’s conclusion that companies who are using stretching programs would be better off “using engineering controls, practices and methods” to reduce the likelihood of work-related injuries, and then point out that those controls, practices and methods just so happen to be services that Humantech provides. But I’ve been sitting here hunched over my keyboard for several hours today, so I think I’ll stretch my legs a bit.

Postscript: Jamie Mallon, vice president of Humantech, sent along the following comment in response to my blog post:

Thanks for engaging in this discussion Mr. Blanchard. We appreciate the opportunity to shed more light on the topic of stretching in the workplace as it is a common question in our industry, from clients and at conferences.

Our interest in talking about stretching in the workplace is to ensure people understand the impact of stretching programs on WMSD reduction vs. the impact of sound engineering improvements. First, we did not author any of studies that we drew conclusions from – what we did was tally the dollar value of the time spent on on stretching. The facts are clear, stretching is not a good strategy for reducing injury in the workplace and may, actually, create more problems by exacerbating pre-existing conditions or causing injury when done incorrectly – which, is the norm in many stretching programs.

We agree, that these are not a savings of capital outlays, rather savings of time. You argue that it is insignificant time – and we would agree that 3 to 12 minutes in the office is an insignificant amount of time. You probably spend an equal amount of time going to the washroom or re-filling your coffee. However, 3 to 12 minutes on a production floor is not insignificant and it is time which is accounted for and taken our of the production schedule. I would dare say, that it’s an amount of time that an operations/production manager would fight for.

For instance, at the low end, just 3 minutes shift means:

• an automotive plant will produce 3 fewer cars

• a distribution center will process at least 5 fewer orders per picker

• a tire plant will build 2 less tires per tire builder

• a cleaning staff will clean 1 less room per team

• a pharmaceutical line will package 8 fewer boxes of pills

Seems like “real” money to us.

You also state: “I could cynically mention Humantech’s conclusion that companies who are using stretching programs would be better off using engineering controls, practices and methods” to reduce the likelihood of work-related injuries, and then point out that those controls, practices and methods just so happen to be services that Humantech provides.”

Permit me a rebuttal…

Humantech is made up of consultants who are all Certified Professional Ergonomists from the BCPE and therefore bound by ethical and professional standards. Thankfully, we all come from varied backgrounds with education in Industrial Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, Safety Management, Biomedical Engineering, Human Kinetics, Biomechanics and Kinesiology. So in short, we have the educational background, professional experience and certification to practice in the field of ergonomics and aim to impact system performance through the effective integration of people, work and technology.

We also have the knowledge and ability to develop, market, sell and implement stretching programs for our clients – so why don’t we? The answer is simple - the research tells us that they do not work.

The real point of our article was to identify that there is a cost to everything even a “free” stretching program – so why, in today’s economy and today’s lean times would you ever invest effort in anything that does not yield real results?

Nearshoring has become a popular trend (perhaps more popular as a concept than an actual practice) for companies looking to gain more control over their extended supply chains by bringing work that had been offshored to Asia back closer to home. One small Midwest-based manufacturer of precision metal stampings, Chirch Global Manufacturing, has adopted a strategy that it describes as onshoring/offshoring –maintaining a presence in China while keeping jobs in its native Illinois backyard. This strategy has been made possible thanks to Chirch’s adoption of cloud computing.

Cloud computing is the latest trend in software solutions, even though it’s not necessarily all that new. It’s just become a lot more common, especially as the mainstream has made Internet-based repositories of software applications so ubiquitous and so easy for users to share the same app. Google, for instance, has made its software packages available via the cloud for years. Similarly, anybody who has uploaded or shared a video on Youtube or a photo on Shutterfly has experienced the power of cloud computing.

Evangelizing its applicability in business apps, particularly supply chain apps, has taken a bit more persuading, but Christine Hansen, product marketing manager at Epicor Software Corp., makes a compelling case. Speaking at the Design & Manufacturing Midwest trade show in Chicago this week, Hansen referenced a study by analyst firm IDC that predicts cloud computing to become a $9.5 billion market by 2015.

In fact, in an MH&L article earlier this year, IDC analyst Simon Ellis predicted, “We expect 2011 to find an increasing number of manufacturers exploring how they can use cloud computing to address technology gaps, most often for communication but also for collaboration. Business relationships in the value chain can be increasingly supported online, using a social business framework for support with the intersection of Web 2.0, Enterprise 2.0, and collaboration platforms and applications.” So clearly, cloud computing is gaining more adherents every day.

Hansen likens the differences between traditional server-based computing and cloud computing to buying vs. renting a house. When you rent, you don’t have to pay a hefty down payment up front, nor do you have to know anything about maintenance. Adopting cloud-based applications on a software-as-as-service model is very much like paying a monthly utility bill, she says.

So a company like Chirch, for instance, can leverage the inventory management capabilities of Epicor’s software to manage and monitor its operations both domestically and overseas, in a shared environment. The software, for instance, helped Chirch identify instances when its suppliers were shipping too much product, leading to excess inventory. That led Chirch to institute a policy where it would only accept less than 10 percent overage.

According to an Epicor case study, “improved information access has empowered Chirch’s employees, giving them more confidence in their decision making. From monitors across the shop floor, they can view all the following: open sales orders, due dates, quantities, finished and on-hand inventory, and ship location. They can also view material purchase orders, so if the required material is not on hand, they can see when it is due to arrive. If the material for a specific job is not arriving for another day or two, the shop can move to the next job in line so a machine doesn’t stand idle for days.”

While cloud-based applications are certainly not appropriate in all situations (there are obvious competitive advantages to having robust, customized solutions), the speed with which companies can deploy solutions, even across borders and continents as Chirch is doing, will help ensure we’ll continue to hear more about this buzzword trend. Though the terms sound vaguely alike, cloud computing is most assuredly not vaporware.

The political waters have become so muddied that these days, even the idea of training now has taken on negative connotations. A recent op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, for instance, suggests that taxpayer-funded job training programs are so ineffective that the only thing they teach is bad work habits.

Reacting to President Obama’s recent proposal of new federal job-training programs for young people and the long-term unemployed, author James Bovard observed that “the federal government has experimented with these programs for almost a half century. The record is one of failure and scandal.”

As Bovard sees it, these training programs typically end up costing the trainees where it hurts the most: in their wallets. One study he cites, for instance, determined that one such government training effort resulted in “significant losses for young men of all races and no significant effects for young women.” Too often, he says, these training programs offer little more than pointless busy work for the trainees (e.g., studying butterfly habitats), and are emblematic of what happens when bureaucracies attempt to justify their existences.

Okay, so let’s assume for the sake of discussion that Bovard’s point is a valid one, but what he’s talking about are government programs. What about training efforts in the private sector? As it turns out, even company-led training programs leave much to be desired.

According to Nick Goebel, global training services manager with Rockwell Automation, manufacturers often lack a basic understanding of whether or not their training programs address the skills gap their workforce is facing. As reported by our sister publication, IndustryWeek, too often managers approach the idea of training as being “a one-off engagement.” Goebel suggests that instead of taking such a narrow view of training, managers should follow three basic steps to ensure their efforts will pay off:

1. Assess your workforce’s skills to ensure you’re focusing on the right things.

2. Customize the training programs to your team’s specific needs.

3. Provide your employees with the right tools to perform the skills they’ll be learning.

Echoing Goebel’s recommendations, particularly point # 3, is Laurie Keyser Brunner, senior VP of global client services with consulting firm ESI International. There is the assumption, Brunner says, “that training translates into an actual transfer of learning in the classroom to changed performance on-the-job. For this to happen, organizations must develop a supportive and complementary workplace environment, where management, business processes and supporting tools all permit the learner to apply new knowledge and skills immediately upon return to work.”

Too often, she notes, companies fail to establish success criteria or identify expectations for the training program. Quantification is a critical step in validating the business case for training. “Producing quantitative and qualitative reports and other high-level output can help prioritize training investments based on real, tangible data showing job impact.”

Postscript: Nick Goebel of Rockwell Automation, whom I quoted above, sent along the following comment in response to my blog post:

David, thanks for calling attention to the importance of training today’s workforce. The point I was making in the IndustryWeek article, rather than questioning the worthiness of training programs, is that in fact there are many manufacturers who are doing a great job of training their staff – indeed, the best practices I outlined there are reflective of the strategies many of our customers are taking in their own operations. The next step is to unite manufacturers, educators, and government organizations to share these best practices and ensure training programs, curriculums and funding policies develop and integrate at the same pace so that the workforce is able to thrive in this complex manufacturing environment.

As part of the Baby Boomer generation, I grew up during what they called “the Space Age,” when TV shows, movies, comic books and other forms of popular culture were obsessed with the idea of humankind not only reaching the Moon, but all the other planets, and points far beyond, as well. One of the more fanciful ideas back then was a comic book hero known simply as the Space Cabby. The basic premise was so simple as to be pure genius: Like any other working hack, the Space Cabby drove his fares to wherever they wanted to go, the hook of the series being that he drove a small spaceship instead of a four-wheeled motor vehicle. The Space Cabby series didn’t last all that long, but it was certainly memorable.

So flash forward 50-some years, to this headline in a recent Wall Street Journal: “Private Space Taxis Race to the Launch Pad.” The article describes the launching of a new era of freight transportation: cargo delivery via a commercial spacecraft. Later this year, according to plans, Space Exploration Technology Corp. (SpaceX) will send one of its Falcon 9 rockets up to dock with the International Space Station (ISS). Last year, as the WSJ points out, SpaceX was the first company to launch and recover a space capsule from orbit.

SpaceX’s initial efforts will be unmanned, though the plans are to institute manned cargo delivery flights in the near future. According to Elon Musk, the company’s CEO, the price of a standard flight on a Falcon 9 rocket is $54 million, and the average price of a full-up NASA Dragon cargo mission to the ISS is $133 million.

The market could be opening even more quickly for SpaceX, given the crash of a Russian cargo spacecraft scheduled to deliver supplies to the ISS. The Russian Progress supply ship, which was carrying nearly three tons of fuel, oxygen, food, water and equipment to the six astronauts currently stationed on the ISS, malfunctioned shortly after blast-off and crashed in a remote area of Siberia.

As the WSJ reports, “[The] failure underscores the importance of beginning to use U.S. commercially developed rockets and cargo capsules to supplement Russian re-supply flights. Since NASA retired its fleet of space shuttles this summer, those are the only two options to handle frequent shipments of supplies to the station.”

While currently generating the most buzz [pun intended], SpaceX is but one of a group of commercial operations looking to get a piece of the lucrative post-space shuttle era of space exploration.

So the idea of commercial “taxi” drivers hauling freight and passengers up into space is no longer just a goofy idea for the comic books. It’s the opening of a whole new logistics frontier.

UPDATE: According to an article in the Guardian, those space cabbies will soon have somewhere besides the International Space Station to deliver their fares — space hotels. By 2016, for roughly $1 million (600,000 pounds), rich and adventurous types can take a space taxi up to an orbiting hotel (though it sounds more like a glorified dorm room) for a five-night stay. The world of “The Jetsons” is getting closer every day.

UPDATE # 2: Hard to tell if this is serious, or just some kind of publicity stunt, but Domino’s Japan claims that it has plans to open the first pizzeria on the moon. Considering that the current population of the moon stands at 0, it’s not quite clear who will be buying these pizzas, let alone who will be making them. This definitely falls into the category of “don’t hold your breath waiting for this, but it’ll be pretty cool if/when it happens.”

As this article in The Telegraph points out, Domino’s calculates that the transportation costs alone will amount to more than $7 billion. That’s a pretty steep price, especially when you consider that the company itself made only $2.5 billion in 2009 in total global sales. But as The Telegraph article also makes clear, Domino’s is still smarting from being one-upped a decade ago when Pizza Hut delivered a pizza to the ISS, so it can be assumed that Domino’s believes that long-range — and long distance (make that looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong distance) — planning might help win some new customers if and when the moon is actually colonized. It’ll be nice to know, at least, that our grandchildren’s grandchildren will have somewhere to eat when they pay a visit to the moon.