Why didn't New York City get a real space shuttle for the Intrepid Instead of the Enterprise that was only?
The Enterprise is a real shuttle. It was not designed 'for astronauts to practice with', it was designed for atmospheric gliding tests for landing. Without Enterprise none of the other shuttles would have left the ground. It was an invaluable part of the program.
Furthermore, New York may be the financial capital, but how much is New York associated with space?
What things would you have changed within each of the five major Star Trek series?
Star Trek: the Next Generation: No Wesley Crusher, more of Riker/Troi Romance. I would have liked to see more Federation/Romulan Clashes and the Borg .. finally the Enterprise would have looked much better if it was designed just like the enterprise E from the beginning
Star Trek: Voyager: there were too much episodes featuring the stupid Kazon! Neelix is pain in the ass!
Star Trek: Enterprise: acting is so shallow at many occasions .. would loved to see a multicultural crew, not all speaking with clear English accent .. earth was still in it's beginnings, it would have made sense. And the Time Travel thing is so stupid, that contradicts in my opinion the later Star Trek series where we little heard of it .. and even when we did it seemed improbable to them and often surprising .. !! and for God's sake, Xindi and sphere builders ,, long stupid arcs .. I would loved to see the history of the federation being shaped .. especially with the Romulans, Cardassians and all other civilizations .. not create whole new ones which we never heard of in the futuristic series!
It is really a mater of economics. The big dumb rocket is still the cheapest and most reliable way to lift a payload into orbit.
The space shuttle was chosen not because it was the best design but rather because its many parts could be divided to the various states so they could share in the money being spent by NASA. The shuttle is in fact a very complex set of systems that are very very expensive. The Russians did all of their space work with the big dumb rockets because there was no politics involved. They just did what was the most economical.
The centripetal force Fc must be equal to gravitational force Fg.
Let Ro= Re+R
Re= 6,360 km ; R= 500km
G= 6.67300 × 10^-11 m^3/ (kg1 s^2)
V= sqrt(GM /Ro)
V= Ro/t=sqrt(GM /Ro)
t= sqrt(Ro^3 / GM )
2. similarly as 1.
....and so are all of them. Let me know if it helps.
Your argument seems to be that because Government has accomplished something worthwhile in the Hubble Telescope, we would be better served to allow Government to do all things. Frankly, that's weak. I am a free market capitalist, and I have no interest in shafting anyone. I do, however, appreciate all of the technology, and the highest standard of living that the world has ever seen, thanks to choice and competition. Sorry, but I don't think the government would run a better grocery store.
Edit: Because I've been to the DMV, I'm familiar with the Post Office, and I've struggled through the process of getting a building permit to put up a fence. NASA was cool, but you can't convince me that the bureaucrats will produce a better cell phone than the technological miracles that get better each year as the result of private companies competing for market share.
Boeing was founded by William E. Boeing in 1916. It is the largest global aerospace and defense equipment manu?
ok what is the real point to this your really asking for something else aren't you Your scenario is a set for an argument about nothing to do with this section ..So i will not debate this issue with you not on this section
Science Fiction or possible fact? rybo-viroxic nucleic....?
The term RVN is definitely a fictional creation by the writers of TNG.
To directly answer your questions...
No sequence of DNA or any other genetic molecule has been found that can turn a developed organism into its preexisting states, unless it is actually part of its life cycle, I.e a spore --> Plant-like fungus --> Spore.
Interestingly enough, although it has not been found possible to turn an adult into a child, it is possible to turn a differentiated cell (i.e skin cell) into a stem cell. This just means that you can reverse the natural process of an individual cell.
This is made possible as everything a cell does it outlined in its DNA, so a scientist can activate certain parts of DNA, while deactivating others. There are many possible implications with research like this, most of which is still to be discovered.
To answer your final question, there is another genetic molecule -- RNA (ribonucleic acid)
This is not new news however, RNA has been known to exist as long as DNA. But it just so happens that genetic information is stored in most organisms in DNA, as it is much more stable.
Note: in many virus' RNA acts as the genetic material
I didn't see those negative comments. I would guess they are not fans of NASA and space projects. I was around for the Enterprise in the 70's. This was a very exciting time in our history. We need to be diverse in where the government spends our money. Great science has come from NASA. Today we use products that were developed from NASA technology. We need to be competitive with other countries in space and technology.
There are several gyrocopter kits on the market today, both engine powered and gliders... A couple of them fall into the ultralight category where no pilot's license is required to fly them. I suggest you check out the Experimental Aircraft Assn (EAA) or the US Ultralight Assn (USUA) for more info...
Yahoo search on Enterprise Space Shuttle:
Wikipedia's got a bunch of facts & photos, as I'm sure NASA Does as well. Thier both in the top 3 links...
By all practical measure, the Shuttle program was a failure. It did push the envelope as far as technology though. The biggest problem with the shuttle is simple physics- the amount of energy required to place it in orbit and the technological limitations when it was designed. It was kept in operation with a giant pile of money.
Smaller, Non-cargo, reusable launch vehicles might be practical. The shuttle, however, was designed by committee to do everything and was good at nothing.
Orion will be a far more economical system.
Obama's Space Program: More Conservative than Bush's?
For me and others, the by-products generated from the space program make the space program a reasonable investment-- if the GOP constituents are not lining their wallets from this US Taxpayers investment, too.
My Dad was involved in the Aerospace Industry when I was a student in public schools. As I grew up in my Dad's household, I experienced a multitude of benefits from the space program that ranged from climate control systems in automobiles to improved methods for monitoring the human body. The benefits from these very few examples generated during the process of making space travel possible have vastly improved life for much of mankind. If you like using the internet, having Doppler radar available to warn us of approaching supercells capable of producing tornadoes, using your convenient cell phone........ Get the point... The Space Program is the think tank for Americans who do not limit themselves watching sports, movies, pop music..... Do, you get the point? And do you remember when America's first Astronaut stepped on the moon, that was the product of the outstanding unity of the United States of America... That was an event that all Amereicans rallied around without someone dying in a battlefield in a foreign country.
The USA needs the space program from which every nation in the world is peacefully benefitting.
As for these Republicans, who behave like spoiled children, we need objective ombundsmen to look over the backs all of the political parties to prevent the waste and theft of the taxpayer's money in all of the eneavors of the US Government. And sometimes change or improvements can be warranted and necessary for our common welfare.
As far as I am concerned, the Space Program is more than the sacred cow of the USA...as long as its financial resources are not being exploited by corrupt politicians for their evil constituents.
I remember that ride at Coney Island and Rye Playland, I believe they closed the one at Playland a few years ago when there was an accident with that ride. Haven't been to Coney Island in years, need to go and check it out.
Space Shuttles, Endeavour, Atlantis and Discovery are the three that are still in service
Space Shuttles Challenger and Columbia were both lost during flight. Challenger exploded on launch on January 26th. 1986 due to a faulty seal on the solid rocket booster that allowed a spark to jump from the booster to the external tank.
Columbia disentegraded on re entry on February 1st, 2003 due to a peice of foam weighing about 1.25 lbs and about the size of a briefcase punched a hole in the reinforced carbon-carbon panels (RCC) allowing superheated gases and plasma to melt the inner components of the shuttle.
Space Shuttle Enterprise was never equipped to go into space but was used as an atmospheric entry and landing vehicle, released from the back of a modified Boeing 747 during the early stages of the space shuttle program.
i gave you more information than you wanted specifically, but there you go..
How many different space shuttles have there been?
Five, six, or seven, depending how you count them.
1. Pathfinder (simulator with an honorary OV designation)
2. Enterprise (flight & landing testing only)
3. Columbia (destroyed February 1, 2003)
4. Challenger (destroyed January 28, 1986)
7. Endeavour (named after the HMS Endeavour)
Will Enterprise REALLY draw that many people in New York?
It will make an incremental difference. If it were the only attraction in NYC, it probably wouldn't draw many people. But when you add it to the already fabulous mix of things to do and see, yes, it will increase attendance on the Intrepid.
The Enterprise was not a real space shuttle. It did not have real engines nor a heat shield. It was used only for inside the atmosphere glide tests after being carried up by an airplane. It carried only 2 people. After the Challenger blew up they considered re-working Enterprise into a real space shuttle. But it was determined that it would cost more to do that than it would to just build a brand new shuttle, which is what they did. In fact the first 4 real orbital space shuttle launches into space (all flown by shuttle Columbia) also only carried 2 astronauts, though they were capable of carrying more, because they were just test flights. Real space shuttles were capable of carrying as many as 7 astronauts though.
You're correct. Enterprise was never launched into space; it was only used for landing tests. It is currently on display at the Air & Space Museum in the Washington, D.C. area.
You have named all five of the U.S. space shuttle orbiters that actually went into space. The USSR built a similar vehicle known as Бура́ (pronounced "buran", the Russian word for "blizzard"). It was only actually launched into space once, unmanned, before the program was canceled. The orbiter was destroyed in a hangar collapse in 2002.
Where should the retired Space Shuttles have gone?
What they have decided is fair enough. There is a limited supply of shuttles and many places that would like to host one. The shuttles were funded by US taxpayers collectively so it makes sense to place them where the most people have the opportunity to see them. Where ever they were placed someone would be disappointed and Houston's claim is not a particularly strong one: they are in a sense out of context there since they were never there in their operating life. Nor is there an existing facility of the calibre of the others to host it. Putting it in a garage somewhere simply to pander to local interests would be the worst possible idea.
What is the maximum airspeed, in miles per hour, if a spacecraft suddenly decompresses in outer space?
We are having a problem deciding what "air" is. I know that sounds stupid, but how many molecules per area need to be moved for it to be considered air? (as in airspeed) Even that leaves dilemmas.
For a fast estimate, you can assume that the air exiting through the hole will travel at the speed of sound.
Since the atmosphere drops in pressure as it moves through the hole, the effective rate at which the atmosphere leaves is at about 60% of the speed of sound, or about 200 meters/second for room-temperaure air (see derivation by Higgins):
P = Po exp[-(A/V)t*(200m/s)]
This gives you a quick rule of thumb, the one-one-ten-hundred rule:
A one square-centimeter hole in a one cubic-meter volume will cause the pressure to drop by a factor of ten in roughly a hundred seconds.
(for quick approximations; only roughly accurate). This time scales up proportionately to the volume, and scales down proportionately to the size of the hole. So, for example, a three-thousand cubic meter volume will decompress from 1 atmosphere to .01 atmosphere through a ten square centimeter hole on a time scale of a sixty thousand seconds, or seventeen hours. (it's actually 19 hours by a more accurate calculation).
The seminal paper on the subject is by Demetriades in 1954: "On the Decompression of a Punctured Pressurized Cabin in Vacuum Flight."
The decompression rate can be derived for laminar viscous flow (that is, near atmospheric pressure) using Prandtl's equation in the limit Po/P is zero, and assuming a simple aperture (a pipe of zero length). The gas flow conductance is Cvisc= 20 A liters/second (for A in square centimeters). As the pressure decreases the flow changes to molecular flow, and the depressurization rate decreases by about a factor of two. This is for air at 20 C; for the case of pure oxygen, the leak rate is about 10 percent slower.
Yes, they are all different, because technology advances quickly. For instance, Columbia and Challenger were both more than 3,600 kg heavier than subsequent orbiters such as Endeavour, which benefited from advances in materials technology.
Secondly, electronics steadily improved over time, just as PCs do: avionics systems improved as did navigational system. The docking systems became better, as did the power units.
There are also the Russian Shuttles, of which some still exist.
The only Russian Shuttle, which ever reached space, was called Buran got destroyed when the roof of it's hangar collapsed under heavy snowfall.
But for example in the German aerospace museum of Sinsheim is a Buran class Shuttle, which got used for landing tests and as landing training for astronauts.
If a 7th Space Shuttle had been built, what would it's name have been?
There is no source for any name tables or so, all US Space Shuttles had been named by famous research ships.
So: Beagle would have been out, because this is no good name for a US Space Shuttle, and Endurance would have been a bad omen because the historic ship got sunk. Same with the Calypso, which is also still getting repaired. Belgica would have been a possible option, if the name wouldn't be so "unamerican". Gauss would have had higher chances. Etc...
More problems with the space shuttle.Can we with present technology build an escape pod for the shuttle?
Space explosions tend to happen too fast for people to get unstrapped and into an escape pod. However, for cases like the space shuttle with a rip in it, there should be escape pods-because it obviously is possible for there to be a problem and for us to find it before it managed to kill anyone.
Do you think it is time to name one the space shuttles Enterprise?
It's already been done.
The first prototype space shuttle was named "Enterprise." This vehicle was structurally the same as the orbiters but lacked the tiles used as a heat shield on the five orbiting shuttles.
It was used in the glide and transport tests that proved the airworthiness and practicality of transporting the shuttle atop the Boeing 747 transporter aircraft.
Enterprise continued to be used on ongoing tests after "Columbia," the first orbiter shuttle, made its first space flights.
"Columbia" and "Challenger" were lost in operational accidents. The remaining three shuttles, "Discovery," "Atlantis" and "Endeavor" continue to be used.
The shuttle fleet is due to be retired in 2010. It is possible one of the forthcoming Orion spaceships could be named "Enterprise," and those favoring this should probably write NASA.
If I recall correctly, this was how the first shuttle prototype came to be named "Enterprise."
Is the space shuttle named Enterprise a real space shuttle Did it really fly into orbit around the earth?
Yes, its a real space shuttle.
No, it never orbited the Earth (it was strictly a suborbital test vehicle). It had no engines or a functional heat shield, so it wasn't contructed for spaceflight.
How come NASA does not use the space shuttle Enterprise? It seems like such a waist!?
Enterprise was used, but not as a space shuttle for going into space. It was used for terrestrial flight tests. It has no main engines and no heat shield. It is useless as a space-borne vehicle and perhaps too expensive and potentially dangerous to retro-fit it for space flight. We're best retiring the space shuttles and developing a new and more useful means of payload delivery and space flight. As nice as the shuttles are, they are really only capable of orbital missions around Earth. The Saturn V perhaps, in my book, is one of the best space craft and payload delivery systems ever created. Too bad that whole operation got shutdown.
Why did the first Space shuttle enterprise have a enclosed exterior compartment where the rocket engines are?
This was known as the tailcone, and was an aerodynamic shroud for early test flights.
Enterprise was never a spaceworthy vehicle. It was designed to test the characteristics of the shuttle in the atmosphere following re-entry. Its initial tests were to look at the shape of the orbiter itself and its aerodynamic behaviour, and the engines were omitted to avoid complicating the tests. In the final two test flights simulated engines were put in place, the earlier flights having verified that there was no inherent aerodynamic instability from the shape of the shuttle itself.
When will the space shuttle Enterprise be available on the Intrepid in New York City for the public to see?
My friend, according to the curator of the Intrepid, the Enterprise should be on display at the museum in about 6 to 18 months. It will have to be moved from the Smithsonian Museum in Northern VA, to New York, which is going to be a very dedicate and expensive progress.
I hope this information is very helpful.
should new yorkers be grateful to president Obama for giving them the Space Shuttle Enterprise?
Yes, New Yorkers should be very greatful they got a shuttle. Quite honestly, they didn't do crap to deserve it. I really feel disgusted that Enterprise went to New York. Especially since New York doesn't even have a place to put it other than an A/C tent! Oh NASA.. WHY!?
This is where the Shuttles should've gone in my opinion..
Discovery - Smithsonian (Dulles Airport, DC). Our most flown orbiter should go to our National Museum.
Atlantis - Kennedy Space Center (Cape Canaveral, FL). The last flown orbiter should go to where every orbitor was launched.
Endeavour - Johnson Space Center (Houston, TX). Where mission control is, astronauts are trained, and where almost every astronaut comes from.
Enterprise - California Science Center. Where the first shuttle landed and every shuttle was built.
Like another person posted, the shuttles SHOULD still be in space. It was our best space program yet. Plus, each orbitor could withstand 100 missions EACH. Our most flown orbiter still had 69 missions left in her!
I live in New York City is it possible for me to go to JFK Airport to view the space shuttle enterprise before?
Unfortunately, my friend, there is no way to access the airport and see the Space Shuttle Enterprise because it will be store in a hanger until mid-June, when it is transported by barge to the Intrepid.
Therefore, if you want to see it, you might as well wait until that time.
In the mean time, check out my blog, which has a video from today's arrival, as well as pictures of the fly by over the city.
Native New Yorker
Well, space shuttles don't land anywhere anymore — the shuttle program was discontinued in 2011.
But no, space shuttles do not land on top of planes. What you saw was a plane carrying a space shuttle orbiter from one location to another. Recently the orbiter Enterprise was brought to New York to become part of the Intrepid Air & Space Museum.