The Orlando Sentinel reports:
For months, a powerful Republican senator from Alabama has fought the Obama administration to block $150 million that the White House wanted to spend to help private companies build rockets capable of reaching the international space station.

According to administration and industry sources, Shelby insisted that $100 million of the money — part of $1 billion set aside for NASA under this spring’s economic-stimulus bill — be diverted to Constellation, the troubled rocket program meant to replace the space shuttle after its 2010 retirement.

Read more about it here: http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/space/orl-shelby-private-rockets-070309,0,4053077.story

Even the very conservative, pro-Republican Rand Sindberg on his Transterrestrial Musings website remarked:
“It (Constellation) can’t use it in any way that’s beneficial to either the taxpayer, or a space enthusiast. I almost weep when I think of the useful things we could do with a mere hundred million dollars. Shelby is quickly making himself public enemy number one of anyone who wants a sane and cost-effective space program. More over at the Sentinel.
“
See: http://www.transterrestrial.com/?p=20151

greetings
Shanuson

The reason why they dump a moon satellite in this way is quite interesting, a real topic for SVD. It is simply not possible to have a moon satellite for a long time in the moon orbit. The reason is that you have to have enough fuel left to make corrections, because of the mascons. Mascon stands for mass concentration and you can look it up on wikipedia (both in German or English). The mascons are located inside the big craters and they disturb the flight of the satellite quiet frankly. So the gravitational field around the moon is not as spherical as around the earth. The first map of the mascons was made by Lunar Prospector.

I’m not an expert in this field, but I think that’s the reason you have to dump when the fuel is left.

Greetings
Stefan

And hi Stefan, like you, i’m from Heidelberg, Germany too. Funny that the only other german “SVCer” i know now, is also form Heidelberg.

All the best,
David.

And thank you for the clarification. I appreciate it.

Welcome from Minnesota, USA!

-Cariann

So we are not only getting more and more space debris we also get more and more moon debris

Greetings from Heidelberg, Germany
Stefan

Sorry, English isn’t my first language

So, Get involved, and we’ll get even more to space. Heck, we’ll have bootprints on the moon before NASA does.

—

Paul Graham
Your Moon, Your Mission, Get Involved – OpenLuna.org

The Guinness info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guinness_World_Records so yes, sorta.

I can’t believe we left Apollo 11 off! We’ll go back through and add historic events to the Spacevidcast calendar this weekend!

Random: is Guinness the beer run by the same family as Guinness World Records?

And I think U2 calling the ISS is one of the coolest things ever! We can only imagine they talked about their mutual awesomeness.

Oh, and Ben- How could you leave the Apollo 11 anniversary off the calendar?!?!?

I said I wouldn’t address this any more, it is indeed taking up too much of my time. Fortunately, right now I’m in between semesters, but with speaking engagements and such, I still have little free time.

You comment, “I would think that the ramifications of a solid first stage would be known long before the crew capacity was specified.” is very naive in that it is a well documented fact on SpaceVidCast and other websites that the developers of Ares I had no clue about the severity of the vibration problem before they were well into building Ares I.

As for the vibration problem relating to crew reduction and the other subject of the escape tower, the relevant issues and sources of information have been well covered over past months on such websites as RLVNews and Transterrestrial Musings, I would have to wade back into previous topics on these sites to find the exact posts. If you’re truly interested in these sources, be my guest, search for them on the above-mentioned websites on your own time.

Rick Boozer wrote:
It’s in NASA’s own documentation. Because Ares I is a solid fueled rocket, it can’t be shut down during flight. This fact means that they need a more powerful escape tower rocket to pull the capsule away from a still accelerating Ares I. A more powerful escape rocket means a heavier escape rocket and the extra mass was compensated for by getting rid of one astronaut.

That paragraph is a bit confusing to me. Are you suggesting that NASA’s documentation states that the reason for the drop in crew-capacity is because of the solid first stage motor? I would think that the ramifications of a solid first stage long before the crew capacity was specified. I’d appreciate a link or reference if that is the case.

If that isn’t the case, I think the statement is a bit misleading. I fail to see an obvious causal relationship between a massive escape tower and the six-to-four-crew change.

Here’s an article on the crew capsule reduction I just ran across.
http://blog.al.com/space-news/2009/04/nasa_slashes_orion_crew_explor.html
(Links are okay here, I hope)

It says:
NASA made the crew size change “in order to improve schedule and cost confidence by minimizing multiple configurations under simultaneous development during the Program’s early phases,” Hautaluoma said. “While a four-person crew would save some mass, the issue of mass savings was not a major factor in the decision-making process. “
(Hopefully that is in italics.)

I have heard the reason that the six-crew capsule was dropped was because two versions of the life-support systems would have to be designed, one capable of supporting the extra crew and one for outside-LEO missions.

A ‘true believer’… I don’t know what to say. I’m didn’t know I was even a regular believer.
I consider myself to be cautiously optimistic in the face of something that seems to me to be less-than-objective criticism. But I suppose I think the same of those who rabidly support DIRECT with what seems like insufficient evidence to support that their option is truly a better one.

I am ‘believer’ in space travel. I am a supporter of NASA. I think Ares V, conceptually, is ‘bad ass’. I think the Lunar outpost mission is a worthy mission. I am skeptical of DIRECT. I think we have to have SOME direction, and heard toward it with enthusiasm, because if we, as a nation, and as a human race, stop heading toward that goal without at least a _little_ urgency, we’re gonna fall over backwards and cry out ‘I’ve fallen and I can’t get up’ which is some sort of clever metaphor of something or other. So, unless there happens to be yet another space program — secretly being built for the last five years in a hidden underground laboratory, which has a alternate version of Orion, and Chariot, and ATHLETE, and lunar habs, and all that other cool stuff, except *better, cheaper, and even more magic than before* — is suddenly unveilied, I have to do with what is available. So, in the meantime, I will have to support Constellation, otherwise known as the US official and supported baseline for human space flight. I guess that’s pretty radical, though.
…But I think I’ve gotten off topic.

It doesn’t reflect directly on this discussion, but I thought this editorial was rather interesting:
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1405/1
I was particularly intrigued by a idea that NASA is some $11 billion underfunded from what was expected when the Moon return mission was proposed in 2004.