how fast can the space shuttle challenger go?
105847
The shuttle needs to reach a speed of 17,500 miles per hour to stay in orbit.
310980
about 1000 mph.\nSome say 1040 mph.
1003796
I have no idea but probably like 70 maybe 85mph.
1170673
The Apollo missions that had to get to the moon had to hit 25,000 to get out of Earth orbit and for certain maneuvers around the moon. The space shuttle and/or ISS orbits the Earth at speeds between 17,000MPH and 18,000 MPH.\n\nUnmanned Spaceborn:\nHelios probes orbiting the sun hit 252,800 km/h in 1974.\n\nManned Airborn:\nOct. 3, 1967, the X-15A-2, piloted by Major William J. Pete' Knight, went Mach 6.7 (4,520 m.p.h.) above the Mojave Desert. Record stood until broken by the Space Shuttle in 1980. Highest altitude reached by X-15A was 354,200 ft.\n\nThe fastest air-breathing, manned vehicle, the SR-71, achieved slightly more than Mach 3 back in 1964. Chuck Yeager hit Mach 1 in 1947 with the X-1.\n\nUnmanned Airborn:\nRecently the unmanned speed record (in proximity to the earth anyway) was broken. The X43A hit Mach 9.6+. Scramjets are thought to be capable of hitting Mach 15+.\nexternal link\n\nManned Ground:\nMach 1.016 in the "ThrustSSC" by Andy Green in 1997.\nexternal link\n\nUnmanned Ground:\nA rocket sled hit Mach 8.5 (unmanned)
1054432
I don't remember very well I but I red somwhere about a F1 car beating a F16 fighter on a 2km distance.\n\nLet's take an example: \nRoughly a 747 weight about 400tons and has 4 engines of 25tones of thrust. This would lead to a maximum acceleration of 0.25Gs at take off. I'm sure a fast car can do better than that
6491
11.3 Km/sec at earth's surface (7 miles/sec)\n\nNOTE that escape velocity is the speed with which you would throw an object so that it does not fall back to earth. Rockets for example have constant propulsion and therefore do not need to travel with escape velocity to go into space.
984027
An ion engine will get you there the fastest. You get the biggest delta-vee per kg of exhaust. \n\nProblem is, in general you only get one encounter with a specific planet once each solar orbit, and you can only get a kick so large each time. I suppose you can hypothesize a super convenient planetary alignment that could shave off some time, but you might spend a long time waiting for that particular configuration.  A lot of really smart people spent a lot of time developing the computational tools to come up with the VEEGA and VVEJGA options.  I doubt the population here is going to come up with anything a lot better.\n\nYou can read more about the DS1 ion propulsion experimental system here:\nhttp://nmp.nasa.gov/ds1/tech/ionpropfaq.html\n\nThe first science mission using ion propulsion is the Pluto bound New Horizons.  Thanks to this tech, it will reach pluto in 10 short years and reaches Jupiter for a gravity assist in only 1 year.\n\nhttp://pluto.jhuapl.edu/mission/mission_timeline.html
1106658
About 18.5 miles per second. 66600 Mph
226867
The speed of light. 186,000 miles per second.
193083
It would take 4.3 years to get to the nearest star (Proxima Centauri) if you were traveling at the speed of light. However, it would take nearly 118,000 years to get there if you were traveling at the speed of a space shuttle (approximately 25,000 mph).
650060
About 200 MPH at tracks like Atlanta, California,and Michigan.\nThey do not run as fast at Daytona and Talladega due to restrictor plates.
683205
About 1000 feet per sec.
883966
Okay, here you are.\n\nAlex's rocket:\n\nDistance: 900 feet \nRate: 112.5 f/s\nTime: 8 seconds\n\nKeesha's rocket:\n\nDistance: 900 feet\nTime: 5 seconds\nRate: 180 f/s
376431
yes, check out the bugatti veyron (world's fastest car- does 0-60 in 2.5 seconds) and the dodge tomahawk (bike that has a dodge viper engine). I don't know if they can go that fast, but pretty close for land vehicles.
47037
You've hinted on most of the problems related with travel at extreme speeds.  In my view it isn't possible with our current technological and scientific knowledge, here's why:\nWhen you drive a car at 30 mph you require a certain amount of enery to sustain that speed.  If you double your speed you more than double your energy requierements, because of friction between your car and the surrounding air as well as your tires and the road. Even if you had no tires (the equivalent of a perfect hipothetical electronagnetic propulsion) you'd still have wind drag.  The same happens in space, which is not completeley devoid of matter.  You would require enormous amounts of power to increase speed by small amounts once you really got going fast.  Actually, you would probably  require more energy than the energetic output of our entrier Solar System, depending on she size and acceleration of your vehicle, maybe even more than that of the entire galaxy.  The material out of which your spaceship is made would melt, burn or crack and other side effects like increased weight and dimensions (Einstein and Lorenz based) would have almost unforseable effects on the spaceship.  The only way of reducing this would be to travel in a circular or almost circular trajectory with modest accelerations, it would take almost a year for you to reach extreme velocities at a 1g acceleration.\nSumed up: you would require more energy than the planet can provide and the material of your spaceship would have to de made of a susbtance not yet researched.  Even solving these two (the solution of which could be centuries away - or maybe just decades, who knows, but it's not at hand) we'd have to deal with Einstein and Lorenz side effects on weight and dimensions, to attain 97%+ light speed (180,000 mps).
263107
That Challenger was awesome
1141893
About 9000 working and not working. It's kind of a challenge for NASA because if they launch a space shuttle, there's a good chance it'll run into one of those sattelites. We have a computer/ telescope tracking them to find acceptable launch dates.