<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Size Comparison Of The International Space Station To Fictional Space Crafts</title>
	<atom:link href="http://geeksofdoom.com/2009/05/16/size-comparison-of-the-international-space-station-to-fictional-space-crafts/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://geeksofdoom.com/2009/05/16/size-comparison-of-the-international-space-station-to-fictional-space-crafts/</link>
	<description>Stuff by geeks, about geeks, for geeks.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Nov 2009 22:26:45 -0800</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: John W</title>
		<link>http://geeksofdoom.com/2009/05/16/size-comparison-of-the-international-space-station-to-fictional-space-crafts/comment-page-1/#comment-742236</link>
		<dc:creator>John W</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 May 2009 13:36:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://geeksofdoom.com/?p=20894#comment-742236</guid>
		<description>First, I believe someone got the dimension of the &quot;new&quot; Enterprise wrong. 725.35 meters is way to big. 725.35 feet is far more believable. That would put it in about the right size given the style.

Second, I&#039;d like to point out that there&#039;s a fantastic website that shows the relative sizes of all kinds of &quot;starships&quot;...

merzo dot net

(Relax. I&#039;m just a fan, so don&#039;t think bad things of my mentioning this web site please.)

Personally, I&#039;d rather have the NX-01. Sure, it&#039;s slow and small, but easy to maintain and fun to fly!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>First, I believe someone got the dimension of the &#8220;new&#8221; Enterprise wrong. 725.35 meters is way to big. 725.35 feet is far more believable. That would put it in about the right size given the style.</p>
<p>Second, I&#8217;d like to point out that there&#8217;s a fantastic website that shows the relative sizes of all kinds of &#8220;starships&#8221;&#8230;</p>
<p>merzo dot net</p>
<p>(Relax. I&#8217;m just a fan, so don&#8217;t think bad things of my mentioning this web site please.)</p>
<p>Personally, I&#8217;d rather have the NX-01. Sure, it&#8217;s slow and small, but easy to maintain and fun to fly!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Patrick</title>
		<link>http://geeksofdoom.com/2009/05/16/size-comparison-of-the-international-space-station-to-fictional-space-crafts/comment-page-1/#comment-741252</link>
		<dc:creator>Patrick</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 17 May 2009 00:42:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://geeksofdoom.com/?p=20894#comment-741252</guid>
		<description>Hah. I doubt that any of them compare with Blake&#039;s Liberator.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hah. I doubt that any of them compare with Blake&#8217;s Liberator.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
