Supposedly not as it is said to be a waste as money as we are not guaranteed to find anything and we have better things to spend money on, especially during a credit crunch.
No. The ozone layer would be more easily destroyed than cooled by anything lofted there.
because it wanted to know more about space
No. Space shuttles are Too Dangerous: Challenger and Columbia, RIP. NASA is going to build a new rocket to send people in to space, but, there will be no more space shuttles.
It is cheaper and more efficient.
not by NASA, yet there are private companies of space travel, and other countries' space programs.
The acronym NASA abbreviates the title of the 1958-established US agency, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.See link below for more information on the NASA.National Aeronautic and Space Administration.NASA stands for National Aeronautics and Space Administration.The N stands for (National) Aeronautics Space Administration.National Aeronautics Space Administration and ESA is European space agencyAww, do you mean the meaning of the abbreviation NASA?It means National Aeronautics and Space Administration.NASA stands for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. NASA is a government agency in much the same way that the CIA and FBI are government agencies. NASA deals with the space program.
NASA does not use spac shuttle any more
Yes, NASA stands for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. It is a United States government agency responsible for the nation's civilian space program and for aeronautics and aerospace research.
Spaceships are large to accommodate necessary equipment, such as life support systems, fuel storage, and scientific instruments. They need space for crew members to live and work for extended periods. Larger ships can be more versatile and carry more supplies for longer missions.
NASA has plans to launch 5 space Huttles in 2010, after that they will rely only on the Russian Soyuz rocket. Here is a list of the future mission (Please note that date are subject to chage). STS-130; Febuary 4th STS-131; March 18th STS-132; May 14th STS-134; July 29th STS-133; September 16th
Simple but true, to learn more about space in general and by few means and to learn to make technology to get to Pluto and beyond. In simple form: To live in space to collect information about space to see how far we can go without being killed. But Obama has recently shut down the NASA program and they aren't sending people into space but I imagine our next president's first move will be to restart the program.
So far yes This depends on a number of points which were not defined in the question. Better may be defined as "More sucessful" in which case NASA wins hands down. NASA have made more launches that any other organisation worldwide. Better may be defined as "Have had more civilians in space". NASA again. NASA have launched more civilians in space. Virgin Galactic have launched none so far. Better may be defined as "Gone the furthest into space". NASA. NASA have designed craft 40 years ago that travelled to the moon and back. Thus far Virgin Galactic have only travelled sub orbital. Better may be defined as "Better advertising and promotion". Definately Virgin Galactic NASA doesnt have a charismatic leader and tends to be a bit faceless when it comes to self promotion. Microblitz