Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site hplabsb.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!pyramid!hplabsb!bl From: bl@hplabsb.UUCP (Bruce T. Lowerre) Newsgroups: net.columbia Subject: Re: Re: A new Shuttle to replace Challenger: What Name? Message-ID: <3265@hplabsb.UUCP> Date: Thu, 6-Feb-86 16:04:51 EST Article-I.D.: hplabsb.3265 Posted: Thu Feb 6 16:04:51 1986 Date-Received: Sun, 9-Feb-86 05:46:56 EST References: <2911@ut-ngp.UUCP> Distribution: net Organization: Hewlett Packard Labs, Palo Alto CA Lines: 26 > In message <3035@umcp-cs.UUCP>, mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) writes: > > > I suggest a new shuttle should be named _Endeavour_. It is a name Laden > > with a history of scientific exploration, and it fits well with the other > > names. Or, if the remebrance is prefered, name the new shuttle _Challenger_. > > > > C. Wingate > > _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." How about "Challenger 7"? The original mercury capsules were all named " 7", e.g., "Friendship 7", "Liberty Bell 7", "Freedom 7", etc. The 7 in that case referred to the original 7 astronauts. The 7 now will also pay tribute to the seven who were lost. BTW, do we really want to replace the shuttle? Would it be wiser to place the money toward the development of the next generation space vehicle? As was posted by someone else earlier, the shuttle is a hightmarish engineering kludge. NASA has already mentioned something called the "space plane". This is a vehicle that takes off and lands as a conventional airplane with jet engines but reaches a speed of mach 6 (presumably at a very high altitude) before blasting into orbit with rocket motors. It is 100% resuable, except for the fuel of course :-).