I'm in the Navy right now, but when I get out I am majoring in Aerospace Engineering. \nMaybe I'm one of the few who actually give a damnn, but does anyone else think that NASA's idea of the new space shuttle...umm rocket is limited and going back in time so too speak.
127460
Going back to a capsule type system definately seems like a strange step.  \n\nBut as far as getting an effective system flying in a low budget enivronment, it is probably a good choice.\n\nI think seperating the cargo and crew flights is a good idea.\n\nI would like to see more alternative methods of getting man & material into space such as the high altitude drop then rocket burn of the Spaceship1, or the space elevator.
98156
Yes the heat is because the shuttle is going about 17,000 mph or more.  But think about it... if we caused it to slow down to the earth's rotational speed, it would drop like a stone!  The shuttle is very non-aerodynamic, it's like flying a brick with small wings.  Without the speed, it would be impossible to maneuver it to base because after entering the atmosphere it's like a big clumsy glider.\n\nIf we were to glide in gently under power like a jet, it would have to be much more aerodynamic. So it's possible, and the people working on the X prize are doing just that.  \n\nBut you will not find nuclear energy on a spaceship any time soon.  The safety concerns of a nuclear reactor blowing up in our atmosphere and scattering radioactive dust are too great to allow for such a thing.
354805
a new one? or do you just want one to romp around with in your back yard? ebay has used military vehicles once in a while, mostly just stripped hummers. either way, you mentioned a debate, and I'm assuming it has something to do with miltary spending on vehicles? if it is screw the trucks, look into how much the navy spends on sponges and how much they're a piece. anywho, good luck with the debate.
87613
Who's this "we"? All 6.6 billion of us? We'd never be able to put together all the needed resources, starting with 7 million 1000-passenger space liners and the necessary 100 trillion tons or so of propellant.\nOK, so we scale down a bit. First, 99.9999% of us volunteer to stay here and die; please step forward. (BTW, this might actually be doable, sending 7000 people to build sealed dwellings and colonize mars, but it would still be a huger project than we have ever undertaken.) \n.... OK, nobody stepped forward, so we try plan b; select a few of our fittest to go; the scientists, artists, guys with guns, hairdressers, telephone sanitizers, etc. plus the, um, necessary biological counterparts to ensure continuation of the species, who must for that reason be chosen for their, ah, sexual attractiveness...\nAnyone remember Doctor Strangelove?
398154
You got that right... But the other units aren't NAVSOC...  although they do the same stuff...  Check out SWCC (the boat guys), or EOD (the bang guys), they do such special stuff the Navy just gave each thier own Rating!
518758
The Shuttles built were:\nEnterprise (not able to go into space, used for training purposes, currently at Edwards AFB)\nColumbia (destroyed)\nChallenger (destroyed)\nplus the three still in service.  They are to be retired within the next four years.  One will unquestionably go to the Smithsonian's Air & Space Museum.  One may be left on display at Cape Canaveral.  The final one may wind up at some very lucky museum elsewhere in the USA.
38136
I would have said that I'm a ex-college non-grad. that doesn't know what hes doing and trying to find places that make me happy. When people tell me to go back to college or join the army. I like to traval and I think that George w. bush blows and I can't really do anything about that except not listen to his crap.
418687
I was Army for several years and enjoyed it...but my cousin was Navy and enjoyed it as well.  So, it is just a matter of personal choice.
603500
I was a aircraft mechanic (AD) in the Navy as well as a rescue swimmer.  I have just recently gotten out, but to answere your ? it is possible to be sent over there it depends who he is stationed with if it is a squadron and what not, but I would say there is a chance not a huge one though.
49376
NASA was started in the '50's to get the USA in the 'Space Race' - the Soviet Union (USA's arch-nemisis at the time) had launchest THE FIRST satellite ever. The USA felt embarrased and needed to show them up. \n\nNASA and the 'money wasted' is responsible for quite a few modern conveniences, from CAT scans to industrial processes and materials, to cordless power tools, etc.\n\nIt is money well spent!
654714
I think that a return to space is inevitable, and will reap enormous benefits in our understanding of ecology, medicine, electronics, propulsion and power generation, food production, and a host of other areas that we can only guess at from this side of the process. \nMars is a good goal, simply because, as JFK said, "it is hard." Landing on, and staying on, Mars, or the moon, is a tremendous undertaking, and one well worthwhile.\nThe problem, as I see it, is that while we are wasting so much of our energy combatting phantoms, we may find it difficult to coordinate the necessary effort to succeed in such an endeavor.\nSo until "terror" stops being the driving force in American politics, I think any serious striving for "progress" will be put on the back burner.\nAnd that is a terrifying though, isn't it?
665825
I'm definitely waiting for 'Warp speed', the Transporter and the Phaser...yes, in time we'll have these things.\n\nOne example is our Stealth bomber which is similar to a cloaked Romulan Warship.
454196
Is it scary, or ironic?  One third of the US space program is run by aliens!\n\nThe Space Shuttle was built be the lowest bidder!
71258
Yeah! Have you been reading the magazine Popular Science? I guess so. The flying cars have to be aero dynamic and there is a 50% chance that they would make it. Also NASA might build a supersonic plane from here to Tokyo in 2 hours. Isn't that amazing! I wonder if they could build that too.
411661
No enough, and by a far margin.  If only 1/10 of what is being spend on armament would be devoted to space, NASA would be swimming in money.\nIn 2005, NASA budget was $16.2 billion (see link #1) and compare that to the spending of US army in Iraq: $3.9 billion per month in 2003 ($1 billion per month in Afghanistan -- see second link) and that was in 2003!  US military spending is over $400 billion per year, and that is to *not catch*  Bin Laden.
634325
"...was nasa lying about neil armstrong going to the moon?..."\n\nNo, definitely not. It's unbelievable how many people prefer to accept the half-baked, erroneous "proofs" that show men never landed on the moon to the undeniable scientific facts that prove we did. Take the time to read the facts on this non-governmental website ==> http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html\n\n"...the technology is much greater today than 1965, so why cant we go up there again?..."\n\nYes, our technology has greatly advanced since 1969, but at this time we simply don't have the necessary hardware to put men back on the moon---no Saturn-like boosters, no life-support systems required for manned lunar voyages, no lunar landing equipment, etc.,. It's true that we could build all the necessary equipment, but a number of factors discourage further manned lunar exploration--the space race is over, the American public has lost interest in the moon, and NASA's budget is far below the levels needed to ramp up again for manned lunar flights.
101399
When I started this project, I had no idea how big it would get. I figured that I would just use a few of my reference books on naval ships so that people on the Netnews group rec.arts.startrek.misc would ask fewer uninformed questions about naval history. I used to post it regularly to that newsgroup, until Joe Creighton offered to put it on his "Star Trek Archive" web site. (April 1995) The hit rate astonished me! People were really reading this stuff! Anyhow, people started e-mailing me with additional information, suggestions for improvements, etc. It got to be a bit overwhelming. Now I'm finding that it's not just Star Trek fans who are interested. I'm now finding links to this site on real naval history sites! I suppose I should point out to any legitimate naval historians out there that this was originally designed for fans of the various Star Trek television series, and so references to future history (23rd & 24th centuries) and an obscure incedent aboard CVN-65 in 1986 involving one Pavel Chekov are of course, fiction. I was also a bit sloppier about references than I should have been. When I started this, I was doing it for a (then) small community of Star Trek fans on the Internet, and I wasn't really planning on it being an academic work with footnotes and references. Some things got lost in the shuffle, and probably a few errors have crept in during transcription. Nevertheless, I've tried to at least list my sources, and thank those who have contributed. Thanks for reading! \n\n\n1705 - 1707 6th Rate Vessel. (UK) \n\nLength: 110 feet \nBeam: 28 feet \nDraught: 15 feet \nCompliment: 115 \nArmament of 24 guns \nDisplacement: 320 tons. \nPreviously French vessel L'Enterprise before her capture in May of 1705. Served in the Mediterranean under command of J. Paul. May 19, 1707, her new captain takes command, W. Davenport, and she saw action off of Leghorn, (Livorno) Italy. She wrecked on October 12, 1707 off of Thornton. \n\nSource: \n\nHistory of the Vessel Enterprise \nBack to Top \n\n\n1709-1749 5th Rate Vessel. (UK) \n"HMS Enterprize" (sic) \nLength: 118 feet \nBeam: 32 feet \nCompliment: 190 \nArmament: 40 guns \nDisplacement: 531 tons \n4 April 1709, built at Lock, Plymouth, England. \n\n28 April 1709: Completed and launched on \n\n1709-1712: patrolled the Virginia under command of Nicholas Smith. \n\nJune 1711: expedition to St.Lawrence under Rear Admiral Sir Hovenden Walker. \n\n1712-1718: Patrolled home waters from 1712 to 1718. \n\n1718: undertook a major repair and refit. \n\n1719: destroyed depot formed at Donan Castle by the Spanish expedition to the coast of Scotland. \n\nOctober 1719: capture of Vigo by Vice Admiral Mighells. \n\n1721-1724: Patrolled off of Virginia again. \n\n20 February 1740: Renamed Liverpool, a hospital ship. \n\nSeptember 1745: decommissioned. \n\n3 April 1749: sold off for 280 pounds. \n\nSource: \n\nHistory of the Vessel Enterprise \nBack to Top \n\n\n1730-1764 sloop (UK) \nUsed in War of Austrian Succession and Seven Years War. Broken up in 1764. \n\nSource: \n\nHistory of the Vessel Enterprise \nBack to Top \n\n\n1738 - Enterprize, \nSmall wooden English Private passenger vessel. The following is a German translation of an immigrant registration for German and Swiss immigrants leaving for America via England, bound for the Philadelphia ports to live in Pennsylvania:" December 6, 1738, Palatines imported in the snow Enterprize, Lynell Wood Master, from London, 120 passengers." \n\nSource: \n\nHistory of the Vessel Enterprise \nBack to Top \n\n\n1743-1748 Eight Gunned Sloop. (UK) \n"HMS Enterprize" (sic) \n\nPatrolled the Mediterranean under the command of T. Henning. \n\n11 February 1744: took part in the Battle of Toulon. \n\n1748: Sold \n\nSource: \n\nHistory of the Vessel Enterprise \nBack to Top \n\n\n1759 - ? Frigate. (France) \n\n" L'Entreprise" (sic) \n\nSource: \n\nHistory of the Vessel Enterpri