OpinionCenter.li   Random page
Update this page |
Space shuttle enterprise
News

Space shuttle Enterprise rides barge to its New York home
NEW YORK — For the first time in history, a space shuttle is landing aboard an aircraft carrier, but instead of catching an arresting wire at high speed, the winged orbiter is being slowly lowered onto the flight deck by crane. Space shuttle ...

Space Shuttle Enterprise floats down Hudson River
6, 2012 - The space shuttle Enterprise is making its way down the Hudson River, the final leg of its journey to its new Manhattan home. (/Photo: Getty Images/Associated Press) Correction: Clarification: AP Top Stories 1:08 SuperFan badge holders ...

Space shuttle Enterprise floats to New York museum home
By Mathew Murphy NEW YORK (Reuters) - The space shuttle Enterprise, strapped to a barge, cruised past the Statue of Liberty on Wednesday on its way to its new home at a museum on New Yorks Hudson River. For a shuttle that never made it into space, ...

Space Shuttle Enterprise Completes Its Journey to The Intrepid Museum
By Robert Sciarrino/The Star-Ledger The Space Shuttle Enterprise travels up the Hudson River on a Weeks Marine barge, passing the Statue of Liberty, The World Trade Center. The shuttle completes its journey to the Intrepid Museum where it was lifted by ...

submit to reddit

Real-time

FredericaJeffre Space Shuttle Enterprise Offers any person tried this? http://t.co/KnKmvRrB

sachiketi RT @CNN: Space Shuttle Enterprise makes final landing. http://t.co/tuWMAlct

kusherl Space Shuttle Enterprise Arrives at the Intrepid [PICS] http://t.co/rb0tFtry #SpaceShuttle #Enterprise #Home #Intrepid

EricaLehmann1 Space Shuttle Enterprise Is that this your safest??? http://t.co/pUILisbh

DavidAugust Space shuttle arriving in NYC to hang out on the Intrepid aircraft carrier. http://t.co/K1amOeFC

toranghadianto RT @CNN: Space Shuttle Enterprise makes final landing. http://t.co/tuWMAlct

MaryanneLanders Space Shuttle Enterprise I hate your ex a great deal with this. http://t.co/eZN04vkC

RobertaRowland3 Space Shuttle Enterprise Funny !. How f'n humorous..! http://t.co/kNQ3o79U

RobertaRowland3 Space Shuttle Enterprise No chance. She drags this again!!! http://t.co/MYOG6mes

DellaKarr Space Shuttle Enterprise Cannot believe I came across this particular http://t.co/mbgdmm6x

peruvianphs CNN: Space Shuttle Enterprise makes final landing. http://t.co/M9YDEUj2 http://t.co/XYl74hiX

MarjoryNeely Space Shuttle Enterprise Is this the very best? http://t.co/JxxLX7Md

gerbermaccarlo RT @CNN: Space Shuttle Enterprise makes final landing. http://t.co/tuWMAlct

FredericaJeffre Space Shuttle Enterprise This is worth a new discussion! http://t.co/E2ACXDX8

Discussions

Why didn't New York City get a real space shuttle for the Intrepid Instead of the Enterprise that was only? by Sam Q: built for the astronauts to practice with. Since Manhattan, New York City is the Financial capital of the U.S.A. New York City should get a real Space Shuttle.

A: like a rocket ship? cause its too crowded and they already have the statue of liberty, so no!

Why didn't New York City get a real space shuttle for the Intrepid Instead of the Enterprise that was only? by Sam Q: built for the astronauts to practice with. Since Manhattan, New York City is the Financial capital of the U.S.A. New York City should get a real Space Shuttle.

A: 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?

Will it be possible to view the space shuttle enterprise as it travels by barge (boat) from JFK Airport to the? by Sam Q: Intrepid (its new home) http://www.newyorkology.com/archives/2012/05/enterprise.php I mean will it be hidden under a covering during the journey

A: Well, the Shuttle is too big to be covered, therefore, you'll be able to see it as it makes a way up the Hudson River next month. Good luck

What is the date that the Space Shuttle Enterprise will be on the Intrepid in Manhattan New York City & open? by Q: to the public

A: The *plan* is lift the Enterprise onto the flight deck on June 6th. But it wouldn't be ready for the public until mid-July. The exact date depends on the weather, mostly.

I live in New York City is it possible for me to go to JFK Airport to view the space shuttle enterprise before? by Sam Q: it gets transported to the intrepid in mid june 2012 http://www.newsday.com/news/nation/crowds-cheer-space-shuttle-enterprise-in-nyc-1.3685748

A: Space Shuttle Enterprise is already in New York. It's currently at the JFK airport. It landed today. It will be transfered by barge to the Intrepid in mid June 2012.

What things would you have changed within each of the five major Star Trek series? by Jason 0047 Q: If I could change things within Star Trek: This is what I would do: Star Trek: the Original Series: Write the series so that there was no encounters with any other Earth like planets. Star Trek: the Next Generation: Write the series to be a little more arc focused rather than being episodic. Star Trek: Deep Space Nine: Re-write the first three seasons to be a little less boring and dorky. I would also re-write the final episode so that it had more of a fulfilling and believable conclusion, too. Star Trek: Voyager: I would have written Tom and Harry into becoming the leaders of an elite flying squad of (Delta Flyer) shuttles. These ships could have stayed in a newly modified and expanded shuttle bay within the Voyager. I also would have spent more time developing the characters more, too. Star Trek: Enterprise: I would have called this series Star Trek: Pheonix instead. In addition, I also would have hired an entirely different cast that could dazzle us with their acting skills. Furthermore, I also would have made the century look a lot more primitive looking and less technologically advanced (as mentioned in the other TV series). In other words: there would have been no phasers, no view-screens, and no transporters. There would be nuclear missiles as a starship's primary weapons, a more primitive looking ship, and an all human crew. ...

A: 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!

Why are they still using rockets? by Marked Q: I understand NASA has recently decided to develop a new powerful vehicle to take astronauts into the further reaches of space, similar to what they had done to the Apollo moon missions. However, upon further examination, I realised they are just newer rockets. Why is NASA still using rockets to send people into space? I thought the shuttle was a major improvement to space travel when it was introduced in the 80s. It has since been retired. Shouldn't a better spacecraft be developed by now that will taken mortal man into the far reaches of space? The Starship Enterprise or the Empire Cruisers may be still some time away but shouldn't some primitive form of these spaceships be developed by NASA by now? http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/multimedia/gallery/sls_launching_2.html

A: 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.

Physics 20 questions? by grand_stoker Q: First person to get them right will get best answer. I need to get the answer. 1. The space shuttle orbits the earth at an average altitude of 500 km. What is its period of orbit? (answer: 5.69 x 10^5 s) 2. Ariel is a moon of Uranus. If Ariel orbits Uranus at a radius of 1.91 x 10^5 km, what is the period of rotation for Ariel around Uranus (in Earth days)? (2.16 x10^5 s) 3. A spy satellite is located one earth radius above the surface of the earth. What is its period of revolution? 4.. A geosynchronous orbit is where a satellite maintains the same position above a certain point o the earth's surface. At what height above the earth's surface must a satellite be positioned in order to have a geosynchrous orbit? (3.59 x 10^7 m) 5. In order for the star ship enterprise to use its transporter it must be in synchronous orbit over the beam down point. What height above the planet mars must the enterprise be for a synchronous orbit? (1.69 x 10^7 m) In responce to joshaka47's comment. The reason I'm asking the question is because when I try and do it it seems that there isn't enough knowns. Maybe you should stop being all high and mighty before you jump to conclussions onto why I'm asking here. If someone can show me how to do one I'll do the rest myself, but I don't know how to do them.. My teacher only teaches us the basic stuff and doesn't show the class how to do the more advanced part of it and expects us all to figure it out.

A: 1. The centripetal force Fc must be equal to gravitational force Fg. Fc=Fg Let Ro= Re+R Re= 6,360 km ; R= 500km Then Fc= mV^2/Ro Fg=G Mm/Ro^2 G= 6.67300 × 10^-11 m^3/ (kg1 s^2) V^2=G M/Ro 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.

Would you for for a man with this record? by daveadam_americanartist Q: Would you vote for a man who in civilian life: Is smart enough to have a High tech job in a nuclear plant? Loves his wife and family and has never cheated or strayed? Goes to church every Sunday? Owns his own home? Participated in every civic activity in his town? Has had meeting with 3 former Presidents? Is a former US Astronaut with the Highest accommodations from the Govt. for saving the crew of the space shuttle? Has over the years stood for economic reform, the freedom of speech, free enterprise and controlling global warming? Has raised his children with the values that leads his Daughter to have straight As in every grade and then goes on the be POTUS? Has been recognized for his bravery for saving the lives of his entire town and given countless awards of Valor? Who is a veteran of the US Navy Reserve? Who has made friends with the top entertainers and leaders of the World? Who has made efforts to save the careers of law enforcement officials in his community when they were in trouble? Who's son has been raised with the values to stand up for what is true and testified at trials to clear the falsely accused, regardless of how much he would suffer when he did? Who's wife has a serious gambling addiction, but with his love and support got over it? Who has traveled the world to help orphaned children? Who has hosted exchange students from 3rd world countries in his home at his expense. Who has been at times the source of great joy and inspiration to all? Who has never acted out of malice towards anyone? Who's father was a WWII veteran and hero? Who fought High prescriptions and health care costs? Who has successfully met with the Prime ministers of over 8 nations in an attempt to better US relations worldwide? Has never given up his patriotic spirit despite being held as a political prisoner? Has never been corrupted by buisiness as usual Washington politics? If so, you should be glad to Know that Homer Simpson is your perfect candidate for POTUS. Facts can be spun anyway that makes them sound appealing... Get the facts, then vote! Spider pig, Spider pig, does whatever a spider pig does! I have no problem with anyone copying this, thanks for asking. Written by Dave Adam all rights donated to divided we fall, Please think. Please vote-

A: That's great. I'm copying that :-P

So, on this sad yet challenging occasion...? by in vino veritas Q: ...can we all give thanks for socialism gone correctly (one instance of many, indeed)? Today the Space Shuttle Atlantis launched in the final mission to one of the greatest scientific instruments ever conceived, the Hubble Space Telescope (soon to possibly be eclipsed by the LHC, though). This is the fourth repair mission, and capitalists please take note: the first repair mission was due to the mirror producer - a private company (*gasp*) named Perkin-Elmer - who ground the mirror incorrectly...please, is that one of the examples of private greed doing things better than the government? Launched in 1990 by Shuttle Discovery, the HST has made many unbelievable discoveries, and has photographed some of the finest natural art that exists. Amongst its many achievements (benefiting both private and public enterprise, and humankind itself) , it has: 1) Discovered black holes at the center of 99% of all galaxies (yes, including ours). http://hubblesite.org/explore_astronomy/black_holes/ 2) Given humankind the farthest glimpse backward into time we will EVER have, with the Hubble Ultra Deep Field. Please view this and be prepared to be humbled: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcBV-cXVWFw Now the Shuttle crew has launched to perform the most technically difficult mission ever: to keep our HST going for some time now, and giving us - we small humans on a tiny rock among potentially quadrillions - an even better understanding of existence and our infinitely tiny place in it. And to think...this was all done by a governmental agency...using our money we paid into it as taxes. Indeed, one of the many examples of Socialism's benefits. So, for those who wish to expand their horizons further - those who look up at the night sky in amazement - feel proud that our government (i.e. the citizens) had the foresight and technology to do what was recently thought impossible. To those who only want what they think is theirs, those who only care how many fellow humans they can shaft with their callous disregard: have fun in your caves. yaad: most repubs and neocons I witness on here term their taxes as a redistribution of wealth. jp: JFK said: "I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth. No single space project in this period will be more impressive to mankind, or more important for the long-range exploration of space; and none will be so difficult or expensive to accomplish"...one man...working through the government, and with our best interests in mind, motivated a nation to do the impossible...Why do you think it can't happen again? steve: r e a d s l o w l y t h e n

A: 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? by Q: Can anybody answer this question right now. Boeing was founded by William E. Boeing in 1916. It is the largest global aerospace and defense equipment manufacturer by orders, revenue and deliveries. To meet the market and customer demands, Boeing is continuously expanding its product lines and services. The product line includes aerospace shuttles, defense systems, passenger planes, military platforms, and computer integrated systems. With corporate offices in Chicago, Boeing employs more than 159,000 people across the United States and in 70 countries. This represents one of the most diverse, talented and innovative workforces anywhere. More than 123,000 employees hold college degrees -- including nearly 32,000 advanced degrees -- in virtually every business and technical field from approximately 2,700 colleges and universities worldwide. Enterprise also leverages the talents of hundreds of thousands more skilled people working for Boeing suppliers worldwide. (Courtesy Boeing) As NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) is really struggling to reach to the planet MARS. Their space shuttle traveling in the outer space requires emergency repair and supplies and if it is not repaired in time then mission will probably fail. Peter, Director Operations Space is getting worried and the crew members’ frustration increases minute by minute as space shuttle can only survive 4 days without repair. It seems that there is no way out of it, a dead end. Mustafa, a young Operation Officer of NASA suggests that we should send another light weight space shuttle which can do the repair job. There is no other way then to try this one else billion of dollars will be blown in the unknown galaxies. Hence, Peter instructs Mustafa to contact to their partner Boeing to build a space shuttle on urgent basis. Mustafa decides to bring all the resources from various functional departments. He gathers engineers, technicians, builders, programmers from different departments of Boeing. They started working together but as they work together there is confusion, fights and conflicts among these workers, their departmental heads and Mustafa. As time passes, frustration creeps in Mustafa’s mind, and his blood is getting thicker and thicker. There is no time for conflict resolution, and he doesn’t know what to do. The clock is ticking and he is thinking he might have to face the ultimate failure of his life. Billions depend on him! What do you think why there is a conflict and fighting among them at this crucial moment? Provide one solution which can solve the problem. Be very concise and to the point.

A: 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....? by Knight Q: On Star Trek the Next Generation, season 6 episode episode 7 (Rascals), there was an accident involve four members of the Enterprise. Two officers and two civilians. While in a return trip, via a space shuttle, they was caught in a spacial anomaly, they had to use this device called the transporter (for non-followers, it is a device that could turn matter into energy and then return that energy back into matter from miles away and even through solid structures.) Because the shuttle was in this anomaly, it started to loss some structural integrity so they had to beam (another word for transport) under emergency terms of the shuttle to mother-ship (Enterprise). Something went very wrong, during transport a genetic structure called rybo-viroxic nucleic (RVN) was lost some how. Turning the shuttle crew from adults to preadolescence. My question is, has there been any studies or findings of a structure of genetic similar RVN? The reason I told you about Star Trek, was because I would review the show to see what I am talk about. Then, please tell me if you know of anything similar being discovered. I hope you can understand. PLEASE do not tell me anything like Star Trek is fake or anything. I do not need that kind of statements. My question is reality base. I simple went to know if they found genetic structures other then DNA?

A: 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

a popular TV show of the time started a write-in campaign to the White House and got the name changed to what? by BunnyButt Q: In 1977, the first space shuttle obiter was flight tested in what is called “captive mode” by being attached to the top of a 747 jumbo jet plane. The testing lasted through Nov. 1977. The orbiter was originally going to be named Constitution, in honor of U.S. Constitution’s bicentennial a) Enterprise b)Baretta c) Wonder Woman

A: The Star Trek nerds got it named Enterprise...

Is there a better way to get into space? by Skystar Q: The shuttle has finally been retired, ending an era of shuttle travel to space. They now have new spacecrafts such as the Orion, Constellation and Aries, etc. However, all these spacecrafts involved blasting off from a launch pad vertically into space. Don't they have better spacecrafts now? Spacecrafts that do not need to blast off from the launch pad? Can't they develop a flying saucer or a starship like the Enterprise or even a spaceplane? Couldn't they ever develop a matter anti matter containment field to propel the spacecraft? So why are they still using rockets to get into space? In 1903, the Wright Brothers built the first plane. By the 1930s, in only 30 over years, air travel is well developed, with single wing planes flying in the air regularly. By 1944, in only 41 years, they already have jet fighters. These days, commercial jetliners can also travel long distances and carry a lot of people. In 1885, German Karl Benz built the first automobile. By the 1920s, in only 40 years, cars, though old fashioned, are widely used on roads. They took over the horse carriages. Are we not a little behind time in the development of better spacecrafts for the travel to space?

A: Nothing is near the prototype stage. Things under consideration include a beanstalk, scramjet launchers, laser launchers, magnetic launchers, project Orion (violates nuclear ban). Lots in hard sci-fi.

The Enterprise wrong? by Q: why am i seeing comments on this event saying it is a waste and 500 lives are more important? what about 500 people? what was wrong with putting a space shuttle on top of a airplane?

A: 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.

Bensen Gyro-glider - anyone ever built / owned / flown one? by gremlingts Q: I visited the Udgar-Hazy Air and Space museum yesterday at Dulles Airport in Virginia, awesome museum! SR-71 Blackbird, Concorde, and Shuttle Enterprise were highlights. But the small stuff I was interested in were the gyros from the '60s and '70s. I remember seeing the ads for them, always wanted one. Anyone have personal pictures or accounts of them , their operational characteristics and hazards? This was the first time I'd ever seen any of them, both the glider and powered versions, in person. Neat craft! I'd like to build a glider version, for tow-behind, but how to make them now, like the rotors and hubs? Enquiring mind wants to know. Thanks! - The Gremlin Guy -

A: 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...

i need HELP on enterprise homework? by Q: not then star trek or the boat but the space shuttle i have no idea What to do give me any thing soon!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

A: Yahoo search on Enterprise Space Shuttle: http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=Enterprise+Space+Shuttle&fr=ush-ans&ygmasrchbtn=Web+Search Wikipedia's got a bunch of facts & photos, as I'm sure NASA Does as well. Thier both in the top 3 links...

What should hit Fabio in the head the next time he rides a rollercoaster? by gerbil31603 Q: Dont take this too seriously just pick something or name something you want to see An Owl An IAI Kfir fighter plane An Asteroid The Aflac Duck A Pteranodon A UFO Chuck Norris' Fist A Whooping Crane The Starship Enterprise The Space Shuttle The Millenium Falcon Xena's Chakram A Lightning bolt A Mig29 Fulcrum a Boomerang A giant coconut cream pie A Tomahawk Missile Superman Artillery Shell A flaming Pumpkin Or name something of your own

A: Everything on your list plus the kitchen sink!

What software is used to create FX in Star Trek: Enterprise? by Sailor Rick Q: (ie: planets in space with atmospheres, shuttle crafts in motion, digital backdrop extentions.. etc)

A: Most likely Autodesk Maya!!

Did the space shuttles equal MASSIVE FAIL? by Barracuda Q: Nasa has replaced the shuttle with the passenger capsule, Orion. Was that experiment using plane like vehicles a complete failure? Is this an admittance? Will this set back America's Star Destroyer and Enterprise programs? I was really hoping I would see one of those built in my lifetime! http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/constellation/orion/index.html

A: 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? by who is #1? Q: Has President Obama done something important correctly for a change? As one who gripes about NASA's sad excuse for a space program, I say yes, and gotta give credit where credit is due, since I keep saying he's wrong on most other things. In case you do not know how he is reinventing our space program, here's an article: http://www.transterrestrial.com/ by Rand Simberg America has never had a space policy more visionary or more friendly to private enterprise. I find the current debate over President Obama's new space policy mind-bendingly ironic. We have a radical president bent on socializing and nationalizing everything from the auto industry to hospitals, but when he comes up with a policy that actually harnesses free enterprise, we hear from conservatives nothing but complaints. Robert Costa, like many, seems to continue to view the space program through Apollo-colored glasses, 40 years on. There is no recognition in his or any other criticism of just what a programmatic disaster Constellation has become (I write "become," but it has been this way since its inception five years ago - it only became clearly recognizable to most in the past year or so, its failure accentuated by the report of the Augustine panel last fall). Barack Obama was not responsible for that. As for Costa's concern about the loss of jobs at Kennedy Space Center, he must be unaware that the shutdown of the space-shuttle program, with nothing to replace it immediately, was a Bush administration policy laid down more than six years ago. Never mind that the space program should not be a jobs program, although, unfortunately, it long ago became one. Where were the complaints then? The so-called conservative opposition to this new direction in space policy seems, at least to me, to come from three motivations: a visceral and intrinsic (and understandable) distaste for any policy that emanates from this White House; a nostalgia for the good old days, when we had a goal and a date and a really big rocket and an unlimited budget (what I've described as the "Apollo cargo cult"); and, in the case of such politicians as Senators Shelby, Hutchison, Hatch, et al., pure rent seeking for their states. Of course, these aren't mutually exclusive: For some, all three apply. But none of these reasons addresses the problems with the status quo or the wisdom of the new policy. Equally ironic is the embrace by modern conservatives of Jack Kennedy, whose supposed vision about space is a myth. Yes, like Barack Obama's speeches, his Rice speech was inspiring - sort of, if you didn't think very hard about it. Is something worth doing just because it's hard? Really? As I noted a few years ago: It would be hard to move Pikes Peak from Colorado to Florida. It would be even harder to build a life-size replica of the World Trade Center with used q-tips. Those things would also serve to "organize and measure the best of our energies and skills." That doesn't make them worth doing. But Kennedy was trying to inspire and to win a Cold War. In reality, he wasn't that into space, as he told his NASA administrator, Jim Webb, a couple of months before his assassination. Had he lived, the program might even have been cancelled, depending on how things were going in Vietnam. The reality is that Obama's new space policy is more conservative than George W. Bush's was, as I noted two-and-a-half months ago when the new budget was first released. Don't take my word for it - ask Newt Gingrich or Bob Walker, or Dana Rohrabacher, conservatives who follow space policy closely and aren't swept up in nostalgia for a Space Age that never really was, at least not in terms of making human spaceflight affordable or sustainable. The opposition from so many Republicans and conservatives to this new policy, which analysts and space activists have been seeking for years, is both frustrating and mystifying. As a former staffer for both Gingrich and Rohrabacher said at a recent space conference, "Democrats don't think that capitalism works within the atmosphere, and Republicans apparently don't think it works above it." The previous plan was going to give us (at development costs much greater than originally estimated, and much later than originally planned) the capability to send a few people back to the moon some time in the late 2020s at a cost of billions per astronaut. Ares/Orion alone - just to get to low-Earth orbit, without the lunar capability - was going to cost a couple billion per flight, which is much more than the shuttle costs, for much less capability. And like the shuttle, it presented multiple single-point failures: If something happened that resulted in the system's being shut down while an investigation occurred, the nation would have no capability to get crews into space at all (as happened with the shuttle, twice, for alm I did not write this article. Mr. T: No Plastic Q-Tips! Us purists see plastic q-tips as an abomination which a more civilized folk would not permit. Is nothing sacred?! ;) And don't I have an inalienable Right to keep and bear Q-tips under the Liberty Clause? By what Constitutional authority could government force me to give up my Q-tips? I'll tell you what, Mr. Government, "from my cold dead hands"!!!

A: 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.

What is the coolest TV or Movie spacecraft of all time and why? by Q: Fireball XL5, The Jupiter 2. Space shuttle Endeavor, The escape shuttle from Alien, The Enterprise, which one was your all time favorite ? These are just examples, please choose your own from anywhere you like. Thanks.

A: the space ship from event horizon

Where does NASA keep its Space Shuttles? by Q: I know that Enterprise is kept in a museum, but what about the others?

A: They are kept in hangars at the Cape...

Anyone remember the Enterprise ride? by moodie1_ny Q: The Six Flags Great Adventure amusement park in New Jersey used to have a number of small but great rides, namely the Space Shuttle, the Rotor, the Enterprise and a very small totally-enclosed two-seat simulator ride near the Great American Scream Machine (I forgot its name). Alas, they're no longer there. Does anyone know any amusement parks not too far from Long Island that have these rides? (I already know that Adventureland on LI has one similar to the Space Shuttle.)

A: 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.

What space shuttles are still in service? by random--person Q: I know there are Columbia, Enterprise, Discovery, Atlantis, and Endeavor, but which ones are still flying?

A: 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? by JimbossJ Q: Discovery, Enterprise, Columbia.... what are the others and if anyone knows what were the dates they were used from until! Thanks space fans!

A: 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) 5. Discovery 6. Atlantis 7. Endeavour (named after the HMS Endeavour)

Will Enterprise REALLY draw that many people in New York? by Q: I've been listening to alllll the hype about 'how many people the shuttle Enterprise will draw to New York, millions will come and see it!' Then it occurred to me...New York is...quite lacking in space memorabilia. Aside from an unused LEM and some mock ups, there really is nothing...none of the Apollo CSMs are there, none of the Gemini capsules, none of the Mercury capsules, none of the Saturn V components..even Kentucky got the Apollo 13 capsule. So, if NASA didn't see enough..interest, point, or whatever to send something that flew man to the MOON and Back to New York, do they really, really, really think an early space shuttle design that never flew in space will bring in the masses, despite Discovery, which DID fly into space, less than five hours away by car (with the Apollo 11 capsule in the same location...)

A: 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.

What is the name of the shuttle being on display at Kennedy Space Center? by blondnirvana Q: i'm wondering cause from what i know there are/were: Columbia, Challenger (destroyed in accident). Atlantis, Endeavour, Discovery (in service). Enterprise (OV-101) on display in Chantilly, Virginia. Pathfinder (OV-098) on display in Huntsville, Alabama. soooo what's standing at KSC ? any information about it ?

A: Hi blondnirvana, The shuttle on display at Kennedy Space Center in, the Space Shuttle Plaza Area, of the complex is in actual fact a space shuttle replica. Its name is Explorer. Hope this helps you.

how many people does enterprise can carry? by Q: enterprise - the americas first space shuttle, can carry how many people?

A: 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.

Was the spaceshuttl Enterprise ever launched? by Q: I have to list space shuttles and their number of launches. I currently have Columbia, Challenger, Discovery, Atlantis, and Endeavor. I know the Enterprise was the first shuttle, but I don't think it launched, I think it just was dropped in free flight to test flying. Anyone know if it was ever actually launched? Also, am I missing any other space shuttles that launched? I'm asking a yes or no question as to whether the Enterprise was launched, not flown. Also, this is for US space shuttles obviously.

A: 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? by Steve Q: After NASA finishes the shuttle program, they have designated these places as the final resting place of the shuttles. Do you agree or disagree with NASA's choices for where the shuttles should go. Discovery is going to the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum's Udvar-Hazy Center in northern Virginia. Atlantis will be staying at Kennedy Space Center in Cape Canaveral Florida. Endeavour will head to the California Science Center in Los Angeles. NASA will also send the prototype, Enterprise, to the Intrepid Sea, Air and Space Museum in New York City. Personally, I think that Florida is an obvious choice. That is where the shuttles take off from. The Smithsonian is also an obvious choice as it is the Nation's Museum. I don't agree with New York and LA. I would put Endeavour in Houston. That is where mission control is. "Houston, we have a problem." As far as the Enterprise goes, I say that should go to Huntsville, Alabama. It is home to NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center. Sure, it's got a Space Flight Simulator, but I think they should get one of the "real" shuttles. That's just my thoughts. Where would you put the shuttles? Why? @Roger: I understand that people would be disappointed no matter where they went. I was just wondering, if YOU were the person making the decisions, where would YOU put them and why?

A: 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? by KALEL Q: HELP! I have asked this before, and people give vague or off-the-point replies, without providing numbers or answering the question. I would just like to know the MAXIMUM AIRSPEED during a sudden, explosive decompression in space, in MPH or KPH. Use the space shuttle, use the starship Enterprise, I do not care. Starting pressure 1 atmosphere. Aperture size about the size of a standard office door. Does the wind blow at 500 MPH? 20,000 MPH? Answers which also include formulae get extra points. Do math and physics exist in America, can anyone help me?

A: 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.

What is the Difference Between Space Shuttles? by Thunder Q: Is there a difference between the Space Shuttles? I know Enterprise never made it to space but Endeavor, Atlantis, Columbia, Challenger, Discovery are (were) they any different?

A: 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.

How many Space Shuttles are/were in existence? by Darth Vader Q: Is the US the only country that uses Space Shuttles, or are there other countries? I know that the US had 6 Shuttles Enterprise was just a test shuttle and Couldn't leave the atmosphere, so assume it's still in existence. Columbia and Challenger were destroyed. So that leaves Atlantis, Discovery, and Endeavour.

A: 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.

When will NASA announce where the space shuttles are going? by [email protected] Q: They've already announced that Space Shuttle Discovery will be replacing Enterprise at the Smithsonian Museum, when will they announce where the other shuttles (Enterprise, Endeavor and Atlantis) will be going?

A: It would make sense to dock them at the ISS as emergency escape vehicles, so that probably won't happen,

If a 7th Space Shuttle had been built, what would it's name have been? by Variable 46 Q: The Space Shuttles are named Enterprise, Columbia, Challenger, Discovery, Atlantis and Endeavor. Were there ever any names assigned to hypothetical shuttles that might have been built after these? If so, give sources please... Thanks!

A: 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? by radio309 Q: We build five shuttles for space and the Enterprise which never was used in space.Two have failed with loss of crew.If we are not going to retire the fleet we should build an escape pod. All ships have life boats. I can not see this old fleet been used with its problems.

A: 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.

Dimensions of Star Trek "Enterprise" space shuttle? by ashley Q:

A: dont know......dont care.....

Do you think it is time to name one the space shuttles Enterprise? by Sudeep KingofScorn Q: All the Star Trek fans and anti Star Trekkers answer this one. In 1974 I was just two, so for all purposes I might have been on Pluto. Down there that is a very informative answer by Warren D. After the time is out, he gets my vote for the best answer. There is another one, a repetition of that. But what I meant is it would be great if in the future a space shuttle could be named 'Enterprise'.

A: 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."

Why didn't New York City get a real space shuttle for the Intrepid Instead of the Enterprise that was only? by Sam Q: built for the astronauts to practice with. Since Manhattan, New York City is the Financial capital of the U.S.A. New York City should get a real Space Shuttle.

A: Because New York has practically no connection to the Space Program. To be honest, it's a crime that New York got even the Enterprise while Houston got nothing.

Will it be possible to view the space shuttle enterprise as it travels by barge (boat) from JFK Airport to the? by Sam Q: Intrepid (its new home) http://www.newyorkology.com/archives/2012/05/enterprise.php I mean will it be hidden under a covering during the journey

A: Yes, it is possible. Thanks for the website posted in your question.

Is the space shuttle named Enterprise a real space shuttle Did it really fly into orbit around the earth? by Sam Q:

A: 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. http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/resources/orbiters/enterprise.html

What is the date that the Space Shuttle Enterprise will be on the Intrepid in Manhattan New York City & open? by Q: to the public

A: My friend, the exact date is July 19. The Shuttle will be transported by barge from JFK Airport to the Intrepid in June. Good luck

How come NASA does not use the space shuttle Enterprise? It seems like such a waist!? by [email protected] Q:

A: 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? by Jimmy B Q:

A: 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? by Sam Q:

A: 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. Good luck

should new yorkers be grateful to president Obama for giving them the Space Shuttle Enterprise? by Q: i know texans are upset because they did not get it....

A: 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? by Sam Q: it gets transported to the intrepid in mid june 2012 http://www.newsday.com/news/nation/crowds-cheer-space-shuttle-enterprise-in-nyc-1.3685748

A: 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. Good luck Native New Yorker

does any one know a website of the design to make the nasa space shuttle enterprise or discovery? by Q: i really want to find a web sight of everything or a few sights that tell me how to make the NASA space shuttle called enterprise or discovery how big what was it what they used to build it how it was built etc i really want to know so i can remake it but a mini scale modal that would mini meaning 6 to 7 foot pleas i want to do this and show it to NASA im a teen going to be future astronomer/ rocket scientist/ engineer/and more to be an astronomer

A: http://models.lemut.net/drawings/Space_Shuttle/index.html Or Google "Space Shuttle Scale Model Plans".

Why did Space Shuttle Enterprise land in JFK? by Icemanrussian Q: I thought space shuttles land only in two areas, Edward and Kennedy? And why do space shuttles land on top of planes?

A: 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.

Images
Videos
Space Shuttle Enterprise sails past New York to its final destination Space Shuttle Enterprise Moving up New York Harbor Space Shuttle Enterprise Flies Over New York Space Shuttle Enterprise Circles New York Space Shuttle Enterprise Last Flight over The Hudson in Weehawken, NJ Space Shuttle Enterprise ALT1 (Part 1) Space shuttle Enterprise catches ride on jumbo jet Final Flight: Space Shuttle Enterprise Over NYC | Video Space Shuttle Enterprise Flies over New York City on April 27th 2012 Space Shuttle Enterprise Landing JFK NYC - Runway Video! Space Shuttle Enterprise Flies Over New York City April 27, 2012 Space Shuttle Enterprise Fly Over & Landing at JFK (April 27, 2012) by jonfromqueens Leonard Nimoy salutes space shuttle Enterprise Space Shuttle Enterprise The space shuttle Enterprise retires Space shuttle Enterprise in Statue of Liberty flypast Space Shuttle Enterprise Flyover over New York City (1 of 3) Space Shuttle Enterprise ALT1 (Part 2) Space shuttle Enterprise makes its final journey Space Shuttle Enterprise Flies Over New York City !! Space Shuttle Enterprise Arrives in New York 4/27/12 Space shuttle Enterprise circling New York City Space Shuttle Enterprise JFK Airport Fly Over (with slow motion) - April 27, 2012 by jonfromqueens SPACE SHUTTLE ENTERPRISE FLYS OVER NEW YORK CITY - HOBOKEN - NEWARK - LONG ISLAND Enterprise Space Shuttle Last Landing from Tarmac @ JFK Space Shuttle Enterprise over New York harbor, April 27, 2012 Space Shuttle Enterprise Removed from 747 Carrier Aircraft Space Shuttle Enterprise at JFK as seen from Air Train (April 27, 2012) by jonfromqueens Space Shuttle Enterprise over New York City NASA Transports Space Shuttle Enterprise to New York Space Shuttle Enterprise Flyover at NY Waterway Port Imperial Space Shuttle Enterprise Tailcone Installed Space Shuttle Enterprise NYC Flyover INTREPID MUSEUM PREPARES DECK FOR SPACE SHUTTLE ENTERPRISE Space Shuttle Enterprise departing Dulles IAD on 4/27/12 Space Shuttle Enterprise Fly-By on Hudson River Shuttle Enterprise Towed out of hangar at Smithsonian Space Shuttle Enterprise just before De-Mating from NASA's SCA 747 at JFK 5-12-2012 by jonfromqueens Space Shuttle in NY, Enterprise Flies up & down Hudson River, view as HD larger screen, Nikon D800 Smithsonian Closes doors on Space Shuttle Enterprise for Discovery Space Shuttle Enterprise Flies Over New York Enterprise NASA Space Shuttle approaching New York City Harbor, flyover Jersey City Space Shuttle Enterprise on top NASA'S SCA 747 at JFK Airport (April 29th, 2012) by jonfromqueens Space Shuttle Enterprise 'sails' under Verrazano-Narrows Bridge in New York City Space Shuttle Enterprise Flies Over New York City Space Shuttle Enterprise New York City April 27, 2012 HD Space Shuttle Enterprise Landing at JFK Airport SPACE SHUTTLE ENTERPRISE 4 27 2012 Channel 5 News NYC part # 3 Space Shuttle Enterprise makes final flight to New York Space Shuttle Enterprise at Kennedy Airport (KJFK)
© OpinionCenter.li - Privacy Policy - Terms of Service - Help & Contact Last update : 2016-05-02 01:20:33