Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site well.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!amdcad!lll-crg!well!farren From: farren@well.UUCP (Mike Farren) Newsgroups: net.columbia Subject: Re: Re: A new Shuttle to replace Challenger: What Name? Message-ID: <603@well.UUCP> Date: Wed, 5-Feb-86 17:58:05 EST Article-I.D.: well.603 Posted: Wed Feb 5 17:58:05 1986 Date-Received: Fri, 7-Feb-86 21:46:24 EST References: <2911@ut-ngp.UUCP> Distribution: net Organization: Whole Earth Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA Lines: 26 In article <2911@ut-ngp.UUCP>, dlnash@ut-ngp.UUCP (Donald L. Nash) writes: > _Endeavour_ would be a good name, but not _Challenger_. Call me > sentimental, but when a ship is destroyed, its name should not used > again. To me, that would almost be like saying "Well, it blew up. Oh, > well, we'll just make a new one and everything will be OK." As for > naming it _Christa_ or _McAlliffe_ (sp?), I don't think that should be > done, since there were 6 other people who died, too. I know, she was a > civilian, not a military person trained to deal with the possibility of > getting killed. First, there is PLENTY of precedent for naming vessels after older destroyed vessels - otherwise, we'd never have an Enterprise. Second, why do you believe Christa McAuliffe wasn't "trained to deal with the possibility of getting killed"? It doesn't take a great deal of intelligence to deduce the (tragically, now realized) explosive potential of gigantic amounts of LOX and LOH, and I'm sure that the training she underwent did not make light of the dangers. No, she wasn't military, but neither was Gregory Jarvis, and besides, most of the military isn't trained to deal with getting killed, either, they're just expected to DO it, if necessary. -- Mike Farren uucp: {your favorite backbone site}!hplabs!well!farren Fido: Sci-Fido, Fidonode 125/84, (415)655-0667