Message-ID: <ga0SBOG00VcJ0Cg04l@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 90 02:12:27 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V11 #160

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 11 : Issue 160

Today's Topics:
		Re: What was Challenger really up to?
		     Re: Challenger's Last Words
		  What was Challenger really up to?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 16 Mar 90 17:09:05 GMT
From: snorkelwacker!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jpl-devvax!jenkins@bloom-beacon.mit.edu  (Steve Jenkins)
Subject: Re: What was Challenger really up to?

Wild fantasy and speculation require no refutation.  In fact, they are
for the most part incapable of refutation.

Let the proponents produce the first shred of hard evidence.

-- 
Steve Jenkins N6UNI			jenkins@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov
Caltech/Jet Propulsion Laboratory	(818) 354-0162

------------------------------

Date: 14 Mar 90 23:36:29 GMT
From: wuarchive!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!samsung!munnari.oz.au!cluster!metro!ipso!stcns3!dave@decwrl.dec.com  (Dave Horsfall)
Subject: Re: Challenger's Last Words

In article <801@sirius.ucs.adelaide.edu.au>,
    francis@chook.ua.oz (Francis Vaughan) writes:

| Ejection systems seem to be pretty violent affairs at the best.

When you consider that an ejection system amounts to a rocket going off
under your bum, that's quite an understatement...  My Air Force brother
tells me that pilots typically require counselling after they "bang out,"
not to mention treatment for severe spinal compression etc.

-- 
Dave Horsfall (VK2KFU)  Alcatel STC Australia  dave@stcns3.stc.oz.AU
dave%stcns3.stc.oz.AU@uunet.UU.NET  ...munnari!stcns3.stc.oz.AU!dave

------------------------------

Date: 16 Mar 90 07:16:18 GMT
From: snorkelwacker!usc!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!qucdn!gilla@bloom-beacon.mit.edu  (Arnold G. Gill)
Subject: What was Challenger really up to?


     I heard the following story from a friend, and have absolutely no idea
about the truth/fantasy involved, since it is all completely new to me.  It
goes like this.

     The real cause of the Challenger accident was not O-ring failure as we
are all meant to believe, but rather due to an accidental discharge of the
military laser being carried (illegally) up into orbit, which blasted through
the shuttle and exploded the fuel tanks.  Proof of this is supposed to come
from the fact that there was a military laser expert on board the shuttle, who
would have no purpose on the mission if no laser was included in the manifesto.
Also, much of the cockpit recorder tape was never released and was actually
erased, as it contained comments pertaining to the military cargo that was
being launched.  In addition, the fact that the cabin of the Challenger was
not located for a month, even though it was in the shallowest water around.
This was done to make sure that everybody on board was actually dead.  The
O-rings were eventually blamed as part of the coverup.

     If you ask me, this is a pretty wild story - something that the Christics
seem capable of.  Nevertheless, I would be interested in all refutations of
the above line - but please, only serious refutations, nothing along the line
of "That is too idiotic/impossible to be true".  I don't know enough to do it
myself.
-------
 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
|  Arnold Gill                        |                                     |
|  Queen's University at Kingston     |     If I hadn't wanted it heard,    |
|  BITNET   : gilla@qucdn             |       I wouldn't have said it.      |
|  X-400    : Arnold.Gill@QueensU.CA  |                                     |
|  INTERNET : gilla@qucdn.queensu.ca  |                                     |
 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V11 #160
*******************