When you hear of these private flights like "Virgin Galactic" and so on, they are called sub orbital flights. So, are they really technically going into space?
124799
YES. The atmosphere is so thin you can't breathe. When the first astronaut, Alan Shepard, rode Freedom 7 in suborbital flight we sure thought we were going into space. All the hazards of deep space were experienced on that flight.
209096
To the first poster, last time I checked Worldspace's financials were rather ugly.\n\nNow, to answer the question.  Yes, both will survive so long as they continue to spend their money wisely and continue to advance their technology.
233997
It needs air to fly.  However, it can use very thin air.  One idea for using the space plane is to fly it out of the atmosphere, where its engine will cease to function.  The plane then glides as far as it can outside the atmosphere.  As it begins loosing altitude (because it is on a suborbital trajectory) it reenters the atmosphere and the SCRAM jet engine will work again.  It keeps skipping across the top of the atmosphere this way until it reaches its destination.\n\nThis trick saves a lot of fuel because aerodynamic drag is minimal while the plane is outside the atmosphere.
296064
Supposedly it's true, there were visitors around the ships, I think that they (Astronauts) refered to them as "Space bugs", they were (and are) seen floating around the ship on several occassions, NASA is well aware of them, they show up on just about every launch, supposedly harmless, but still a life form of some sort. One school of thought is that the reason the moon shots were cancelled was because, NASA had found evidence that now, or at one time the moon was being used as an observation post for another life form that was studying Human behavior on Earth.... Perhaps they got sick, after seeing how we treat each other, and left ! Pretty interesting stuff, Huh ?
353161
Yes, we have the technology to do this now.  What's holding us back is the cost, not the tech.\n\nThe trip would be about six months each way using the engines we have now and gravity assists where possible.  The most likely scenario would be to first launch a series of un-manned "provision" ships to land on Mars or perhaps orbit it -- these would contain food, water, and fuel.  Once we had verified that they were safely at their destination, we would launch the manned ship -- which would carry enough provisions for a one-way trip, and upon arrival at Mars re-stock from the earlier unmanned ships and then return to Earth.  \nWe *could* fully provision a ship for a round-trip, but doing so makes the manned craft much larger and expensive, and lacks the backup of additional supplies existing at the destination.\n\nAll of this is already on NASA's drawing boards, though whether it will ever happen or not is completely a matter of $$ :)
48752
I'm not sure I understand the question.\n\nBut if the spaceship is travelling at a certain speed - relative to the Earth - then so is the astronaut. So when he gets out of the spaceship his/her speed *relative to the spaceship* is about zero. They travel together, in other words.\n\nIf there were friction things would be different. That is why if you try to walk on the wing of a 747 you will not remain travelling with the plane for very long.
615540
This question  has been asked before, hasnt it? Sounds familiar.\n\nSpace is never ending, you can leave the Milky Way and you will enter another galaxy, depending on where ure exit point is.
367483
Of course they will get there. It is merely an issue of enough fuel to guid and proel the ship. As long as they have an airtight capsule they will be able to make it. \n\nThe bigger issue is why waste money going. Unless you have a reasonable sense of getting a return for your investment why go. \n\nIn short they will not go until technology is developed that would allow people to go and stay for an extended period.
58510
>>>Can gravity be used as a means of propultion?\n\nIt can and it is. Have you ever seen a flying squirrel? Or a petrel diving on a fish? They are using gravity as a means of propulsion. \n\n>>>>>For instance if it is possible to create a device which "bounces" off of gravity. \n\nYou can’t ‘bounce off’ gravity. Gravity is an attractive force, not a repulsive. \n\nThe suggestion is nonsense. You might just as well ask whether you can stand at the top of a well and use the hole to fall up to the sky. \n\nOr maybe ask whether you can use the negative speed of a stationary vehicle to get back where you came from. \n\nIt makes no sense in a  ‘sunbeams trapped in a jar as a nightlight’ kind of way.\n\n\n>>>>>somebody said "gravity is an attractive force"\n>>>>> therefore it is a force... so what about the concept >>>>> of anti-gravity?\n\nThat's way outside my ability to comment on. Anti-gravity depends on the production of anti-gravitons. We don't even know if gravity is caused by gravitons yet, we've never seen one. We've ceratinly never been able toproduce an anti graviton. It's all science fiction stuff. I gather it's possible in theory if certain theories are correct, but in practice.....
286241
As I have told every one else who asks this, yes, it is scientifically plausible, but whether we would be able to successfully use this technology is indeed questionable. As we have seen on the show, all of the technology is so far beyond our level of comprehension and understanding, as Jacob/Selmak was trying to explain to Jack in Exodus, when he wanted him to leave the Mothership with the Tok'ra, and he was right about how far beyond us the technology is. For example, in Tangent when they attempted to modify a death glider, even Carter admitted that they didn't completely understand the physics of the ship, and as Jacob Selmak stated:\n"And, what were you thinking, anyway? Retrofitting a death glider? You should have known better. The technology you're screwing around with is way over your head!......you've got to learn to take small steps. You can't just slap a US Air Force sticker on the side of a death glider and call it yours. Advancement like that has to be earned."\n\nAnyway back to your original question, as I said earlier, it's really only a matter of science; take for example the Asgard beaming technology and the Goa'uld transport rings. Transport rings, when in position, transmit all matter within their circular formation to another pair of rings at a different location, utilizing a conduit of bright energy. If there is a person or object on the receiving end, the rings can exchange the two simultaneously. Asgard transporters on the other hand, use energy beams to dematerialize their subjects and send their energy forms away at near-light speeds to the designated coordinates.
62314
Nobody has ever landed in space, as there is nothing to land on (wherever there is something in the universe to land on,it is not truly space, but rather whatever it is that's being landed upon).  Big bands are discovered by agents and talent scouts, or sometimes producers and other established artists.  It is possible that we are descended from animals, and is possible that we are not.  To say certainly one way or another is to be taking a leap of blind faith, on some level, that your belief is not only true, but the alternative is indubitably false.
101697
Some people are just ignorant, I guess. I guess those are fake airplanes overhead. That is a fake space station you can see flying overhead (you can even make out its shape with a decent pair of binoculars).
261415
I work at NASA and help train the astronaunts.  It's not like the movies (AKA Space Cowboys).\n\nMost astronaunts are skilled professionals with multiple degrees.  They are constantly being trained for a shuttle launch.  About 4 weeks before launch, their training increases from 30-40 per/week to up to 60 depending on EVA's and stuff.
574434
that would depend on the velocity of the craft, the velocity the at you were pushed out with respect to the velocity of the craft, and what near by celestial or terrestrial bodies were near, to influence your movement with their gravitational pull...  if you wre set outside a ship, with zero velocity, and left, out in deep space... you would remain essentially motionless... if the same were done to you near the earth, you wold fall to the earth.. if you were pushed out the side door of the space shuttle while it orbited... you would most likely orbit several time before your orbit decayed and you would have a incredibly painful reentry... as short as the pain might be...
190457
The world has a "been there done that" philosophy. They think its cool that we can go into space but they're a little more preoccupied with their own lives right here on earth and the problems surrounding them. \n\nRoutine missions in space do not have that "sensationalism" that attracts the human eye. Announce that they've found aliens on Mars and they'll pay attention. Otherwise why do they care about finding a new star they'll never have access to out of the billion and one stars they can see in the sky each night, or looking at endless pictures of landscape and gas deposits. Woo sign me up X_X\n\nOn a slightly less respectable note, NASA is also the organization who wasted millions of dollars because they created architectural plans for a space project using metric measurements and then didn't stop to make sure the BUILDER used the same measurements until after it went belly up. Talk about an embarassment and losing respect. They're supposed to be the brainiacs!
99237
air plane is not design for outerspace. From the word itself AIRPLANE, it need air and we all know there no air out in space.
656868
Yes...the Space Shuttle is an airplane. Anything can fly in space...a piano... a ficus tree...a submarine...if you could get it into space without it being destroyed by the atmospheric pressures encountered during lift-off and acceleration! They wouldn't be able to maneuver very well, though! (The Space Shuttle's wings are useless in space...it maneuvers with small rockets. The wings are for atmospheric-use only.)