Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watnot.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!watnot!pehaxell
From: pehaxell@watnot.UUCP (Penny Haxell)
Newsgroups: net.columbia
Subject: Re: A new Shuttle: What Name?
Message-ID: <11460@watnot.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 8-Feb-86 20:35:19 EST
Article-I.D.: watnot.11460
Posted: Sat Feb  8 20:35:19 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 9-Feb-86 05:38:20 EST
References: <6372@utzoo.UUCP>
Reply-To: pehaxell@watnot.UUCP (Penny Haxell)
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 17
Summary: 

In article <6372@utzoo.UUCP> kcarroll@utzoo.UUCP (Kieran A. Carroll) writes:
>(per aspera, ad astra)
>
>Keep in mind that the names of most of the shuttles
>are the names of old sailing ships.  There is no taboo
>against re-using the name of a ship that has been
>lost, as far as I know.  Personally, I think that
>since the name "Challenger" is now unused by any
>space-going vehicle, it'd be appropriate to put a
>proud name back in circulation.  Perhaps not
>for the new space shuttle, as that'd cause potential
>confusion for future historians (was that the Challenger
>that exploded, or the other one...?).  Of course,
>you could name the new shuttle "Challenger II".

Do you know anyone who would even consider naming their ship the
Titanic II?