Question bout space shuttle!?
461537
Before launch, the shuttle crew activates the the ship's rockets. At t=0, the Solid Rocket Boosters or SRBs are activated to provide the initial lift. As the name implies, the SRBs run on solid fuel in order to maximize thrust, but the design has a major drawback. Combustion of the solid fuel cannot be controlled in any way, and it will continue to burn the rest of the way until the fuel runs out 5 minutes later. So, the ship is stabilized before ignition.  After 5 minutes, the SRBs are jettisoned to lessen weight and the SRBs parachute back to earth. The shuttle continues on with the fuel in the external tank (the orange cone) attatched to its belly until the fuel it contains is used up 30 minutes later. That is then it is also jettisoned, but unlike the SRBs, the external tanks remain in space, for good. The shuttle then maneuvers itself around using its own fuel and thrusters to do the job it came up for. It may dock with the ISS, do some repairs, release its sattelite cargo or do whatever it came up to do.\n\nWhen it's time to head home, the shuttle again uses its thrusters and boosters to maneuver itself into low orbit and heads into the atmosphere for re-entry. As the shuttle heads deeper into Earth's atmosphere, friction between the shuttle and the air increases. The space shuttle is purposely built to utilize this effect for re-entry. Its design incorporates a flat base on the underside. That part and some others are generously covered with special ceramic tiles that can withstand temperatures up to 5000 degrees, depending on the thickness. So, the shuttle maximizes friction during re-entry by facing its underside to the direction it is travelling to, using the red-hot ceramic tiles to absorb the heat while slowing itself down. It is a dangerous procedure. If only one of the tiles cracked, went loose or dropped, the shuttle will disintegrate like shuttle Columbia. If the shuttle survives, it heads to its planned destination - a commercial runway. It slowly shifts its flying position back to aircraft-style and lands using landing gears and brake parachute.
776931
NASA launched the STEREO shuttle at the end of last month to gather data on the sun. I watched the entire count down and lift off. It was very educational. That baby flew at speeds exceeding 10000 meters per second. They had some weather problems and the launch got held back about 20 minutes, but when it launched it was really worth it. The next launch is on December 7th and I highly reccomend watching it. Its better than most of the crap on television!
101069
It was Columbia. It was first launched into space 04/12/81 It was the First Flight (STS-1) of the space shuttle program, now on hiatus after the rentry destruction of Columbia.\n\nThere was an earlier test orbiter called Enterprise. It was the prototype and was used to many tests but never actually made it into orbit. This orbiter now resides at McDonnell Space Hangar at the new National Air and Space Museum's Udvar-Hazy Center near Dulles Airport in northern Virginia.
682053
That makes no sense. It doesn't exist. Sorry, not applicable. Space shuttle year. What is that? Maybe try: http://www.nasa.gov
797107
The names of the shuttles are: Atlantis, Challenger, Columbia, Discovery, Endeavour.\nChallenger was lost during launch in 1986, Columbia was lost during re-entry on February 2003.\nMission names are for example STS-114, STS-115...
617290
If by power for launch, the above answers are correct.  If you mean providing electrical power once the Shuttle is in orbit, they use fuel cells that combine hydrogen and oxygen for the dual purpose of generating electricity and providing drinking water.
832992
Show the logistics of building a space station. i.e. First you would have to get a few modules built, then stock the modules with what you would need to continue. Figure in you are only allow to carry a limited amount of weight every time the shuttle leaves Earth. What would you bring first, second, third, etc. Who would you need to have up there? A pilot of the shuttle, some mechanics, maybe a physician - when would you be able to add solar panels for power? You can make it as involved as you want to.
105872
Actually Rolling Stones Magazine just wrote an article on tthis.  I'd go to your library and read it because it was really interesting.  According to the magazine, the Bush administration is trying to send a shuttle to Mars to do some necessary research on the planet to figure out if it is sustainable.  As far as water goes (someone mentioned it before me) they are saying that the astronauts will have some sort of device that turns urine into drinkable water. \n\nThere also saying that it will take 6 months to get to Mars.  Also, if they were to launch several people into space, they wouldn't be able to do it all at once.  Rather, they would launch separate parts and connect in outerspace.\n \nThe article said that they want to send to astronauts out around 2020 to do the initial investigation.\nCheck out the article...its really good.
588397
The Space Shuttle Challenger (OV-99) exploded shortly after takeoff in 1986. The Space Shuttle Columbia (OV-102) exploded during re-entry in 2003.\n\nThe other space shuttles are:\nDiscovery\nAtlantis\nEndeavour (replacing Challenger)\n\nThe test shuttle, which did not actually go into orbit, was Enterprise.
431855
Hi there!  I'm a physics and astronomy student, so, while I'm not the authority on the subject, I can tell you what my current understanding is:\n\nIt really all comes down to cost in my opinion.  We aren't sending astronauts to Mars primarily because it would cost a lot to get them there with current technologies and it would still take a while for the trip (it took about 7 months for the Mars rovers to get there).\n\nSome people also think it is unsafe because we haven't sent humans out nearly that far yet.  Messages would also take at least 8 minuets to get a response (I think Mars is about 4 light minuets away so it would take as long to transmit a signal to Earth and just as long for the response to get back).  That's kind of a pain but not a big problem in my mind.\n\nAs for sending probes further out, this is indirectly related to cost.  We are still only able to move so fast.  You can blame this on reduced funding for NASA if you like (or closed minded scientists perhaps).  \n\nWe have sent a few probes out to explore the outer planets of our own solar system but we can't expect to be exploring other stars and solar systems anytime soon because even the next closest star system is about 4.3 light years away.  If we could travel at the speed of light (which we definitely could not with current technology) it would take 4.3 years to get there.  (Using the relationship for Mars from earlier I'd guess that this means it would take oh...162,540 years (really rough estimate assuming I did the math correctly) with our current abilities, so sending humans would be silly since we rarely make it past 100).  This is connected to funding because, in theory, if we had more money we could come up with and actually use better ideas for space exploration, including faster means of travel.\n\nFinally, we can explore "visually".  We can collect different types of light (like visual light, infrared, x-ray, and ultra violet) and learn a lot about our universe that way.  Most of what we know about our universe comes from local collection and interpretation of this (like with Hubble).  This field is progressing at a reasonable rate as we developer better equipment for viewing very distant things in great detail.  It could also benefit from increased funding though.\n\nIn retrospect, I suppose that money might be the root of the issue, but until we figure out how to jet through space more quickly, so is time.
441964
You know I was just thinking about this yesterday.\nIf you recall the footage of the lunar lander…it was pretty small. Remember the astronauts climbing down the ladder?\nWell what about the lunar car buggy? That was pretty large.\nWhere was it stored?\nHow did they take it out of the lander?\nHas anyone seen footage of them taking it out of the lander?
18018
Solar Sails are a very interesting technology that could be used for future space exploration, but currently face serious engineering issues to be able to do this.  \n\nFuture manned and robotic space exploration outside of our solar system could currently be considered a pipe dream.  Solar Sails, along with fusion motors, Bussard ramjets, antimatter drives, and Von Neumann machines are the various technologies being research as possible ways to further our manned and robotic exploration of space outside of our own solar system.\n\nAs far as the speed for a Solar Sail, most Solar Sail proposals would provide thrust for the craft with a very large laser. The actual speed of the craft would depend on the size of the craft and the size of the laser used, and the amount of time the laser would be able to provide thrust for the craft.
682737
Being an astronaut would ROCK! Unfortunately the odds of becoming a 'high flier' are pretty slim, you have to be like a specialist, have a stack of degrees, and probably be someone's relative. Nonetheless, being one of the people that grew up watching movies like 2001: A Space Odyssey, and getting to see the shuttle launch for the first time on TV, I'd jump at the chance to do it, if nothing else to say I'd done it. Unfortunately, NASA produces lots of other things besides missions into space, chances would be better waiting for Spaceship Two etc. I fully believe Dick and Burt Rutan will continue to set records and new benchmarks for space travel. If not them, then wait for Honda, they'll build something that'll do laps around the moon AND get 40 MPG(hwy.) LOL
503562
fire is just hot air.  The space shuttle has to travel through fire on its reentry into the atmosphere.
978556
Columbia (STS-1)\n\nIt was the second shuttle built, (first was the enterprise which was never launched), and by far the heaviest because it had the most instrumentation for measuring all sorts of things as they developed the shuttle program.  It was piloted by Bob Crippin and i think the commanders name was Young, cant remember his first name\n\nIts also the shuttle that burned up upon re-entry after the foam shedding impact on launch last year.
130717
A space craft is a vehicle that travels once in space. A   rocket is just a big, hot engine that is used to propel the space craft outside of Earth's gravitational pull. \n\nGood Luck!
628659
Less than 34 and more than 3.  Here is a link to a copy of NASAs current shuttle flight Manifest.  It is somewhat hard to tell which flights are bringing modules and other pieces of permanent hardware to the the ISS, but it looks like at least 10 flights are. \n\nhttp://www.thespaceplace.com/shuttle/future.html