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 puff.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!uwvax!puff!hammen
From: hammen@puff.UUCP (Zaphod Beeblebrox)
Newsgroups: net.columbia
Subject: Re: Launch naming scheme - Revisited
Message-ID: <650@puff.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 27-Feb-86 13:49:27 EST
Article-I.D.: puff.650
Posted: Thu Feb 27 13:49:27 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 1-Mar-86 17:08:42 EST
References: <167@jc3b21.UUCP>
Organization: Betelgeuse V
Lines: 28
Summary: launch scheduling, $$$

In article <167@jc3b21.UUCP>, eem@jc3b21.UUCP (Emery E. Mandel) writes:
> An article on the net about a month ago explained
> that the first digit of a launch name (61-C for
> instance) represented the fiscal year in which
> the mission was launched. My question is: Why
> was the Columbia mission named 61-C while the
> Challenger mission was named 51-L? To me, it
> seems as though they're going backwards. (No
> pun intended in light of the accident.)
> 
> Can someone "in the know" answer this for me?
> Thanks in advance.
> 
> Emery Mandel
> ------------
> "Gee, it's warm down here in FLORIDA."

	The reason that the launch was 51-L, for 1985, is that the funding
for the flight was initially approved for the 1885 fiscal year.  The Columbia
mission was financed from the 1986 budget, hence the 61-whatever designation.
				Robert J. Hammen
				U. of Wisc. CS Dept.
				U. of Wisc. Plasma Physics Dept.
				Manta Software Corp.
				{seismo, allegra, ihnp4}!uwvax!puff!hammen
							      !gumby!hammen
				hammen@gumby.wisc.edu
				hammen@puff.wisc.edu