HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mheney@access.digex.com (Michael K. Heney)
Subject: Re: Mac Powerbook to fly on STS-52
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 14:16:14 GMT

In article <Bv54xr.C7M@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <1992Sep25.061931.5449@news.duc.auburn.edu> gmarfoe@eng.auburn.edu writes:
>>I'm pretty sure a Mac Portable was flown on a Shuttle flight in August 1991,
>>and DOS-based laptops have also been flown on other flights. 
>
>All Johnny-Come-Latelies...  A Radio Shack Model 100 flew with the first
>Canadian astronaut in pre-Challenger days.
>
>(If you want to be picky, modified Grid portables have flown on every
>shuttle flight, as far as I know, but those things are such oddballs that
>they barely qualify as commercial computers...)
>-- 
>There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
>mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

I wouldn't say that, Henry.  I have a Grid machine sitting less than 30cm
from me as I type (a GridPad - one of those pen-based beasties).  It
behaves as an XT-class machine if you plug a keyboard in; otherwise it
has a GUI for pen operations.  I'd call it a pretty commercial machine.


-- 
Mike Heney                |   Senior Systems Analyst and     |  Reach for the
mheney@access.digex.com   |  Space Activist / Entrepreneur   |  Stars, eh?
Kensington, MD (near DC)  |     * Will Work for Money *      |
From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: STS-47 "by the numbers"
Date: 30 Sep 92 12:59:36
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.ucsc.edu
In-reply-to: gpwysjd@gp.co.nz's message of 30 Sep 92 14:15:57 +1200

In article <1992Sep30.141559.1696@gp.co.nz> gpwysjd@gp.co.nz writes:


   Greetings,

   In article <1992Sep28.160833.1@vf.jsc.nasa.gov>, mcmillan@vf.jsc.nasa.gov 
   writes:

   > Counting each individual human-flight ("warm seat") as a single ticket, this
   > new flight will involve the 492nd to 598th "tickets to orbit".  The 338 
				 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
   > tickets on American orbital missions are held by 189 individuals, including 
   > 17 women (one non-US); the 160 tickets on Soviet/Russian vehicles are held
   > by 93 individuals, including 3 women (one non-Soviet).

   Question: Am I looking at a typo here :-)

	   Or were there really 106 "tickets" on STS-47?

   Seems to me that that is an awful lot of people to be putting into
   space in one go, or maybe they were looking for a World Record of
   number of people in space at one time ... :-)

The Boomers come of age.
The Mission Commander was part of the "most people in a telephone
booth" record and wanted to go one better. Rumour is that several
"firsts" in space were simultaneously set by various combinations
of people near the bottom of the pile ;-)

|  Steinn Sigurdsson	|I saw two shooting stars last night		|
|  Lick Observatory	|I wished on them but they were only satellites	|
| steinly@lick.ucsc.edu |Is it wrong to wish on space hardware?		|
| "standard disclaimer"	|I wish, I wish, I wish you'd care - B.B. 1983	|
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Gemini Ejection Seats
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 23:20:28 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <44695@donald.WichitaKS.NCR.COM> msjohnso@donald.WichitaKS.NCR.COM (Mark Johnson) writes:
>>The reason they were practical is that the Titan II's hypergolic fuels
>>would ignite on contact, eliminating the possibility of the fuels mixing
>>and then exploding.  The reduced potential for a massive explosion...
>
>I've heard this cited many times; I wonder if anyone ever re-thought the 
>decision to go without an escape tower in light of the Titan II accident
>in Arkansas a few years back...due to a massive leak, the missile blew hard
>enough to send the (rather heavy) Mark VI re-entry vehicle several hundred
>yards out into the Arkansas brush...

Note that I said "reduced", not "eliminated".  A Titan II can still produce
a pretty respectable blast, especially if confined inside a tube, but it
would be neither as big nor as violent as the worst-case Atlas explosion.
-- 
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: LIST OF LAUNCHES WANTED
From: pols051@csc.canterbury.ac.nz
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 02:01:11 GMT
Organization: University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand

I may be visiting the United States in 1993.   Since childhood I have had a
lifelong interest in space exploration, and for this reason I would like to
time my visit to Florida so that I can watch a shuttle launch.   
Please could someone e-mail to me a list of the proposed schedule for
such flights for 1993.   Also, are there any other interesting or historical 
flights (shuttle or otherwise) taking off from any other part of the United 
States that might be worth watching?

Also, I may be visiting Europe and several states of the CIS.   Does anyone
have a list of Russian launches during this period and information on how I
might get to see them?   Alternatively, are there any other historic or
significant launches anywhere else in the world?

Thanks to anyone who can help me on this.

Andrew Hoy
Political Science Department
University of Canterbury
Christchurch, New Zealand.
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: More 0 ring problems....
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 07:13:23 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <r19qba3l@cck.coventry.ac.uk> enf021@cck.coventry.ac.uk (Achurist) writes:
>I heard of some suggestion that liquid propellant boosters could be used
>to save on cost instead of solid boosters. There is a complexity problem
>but as far as performance and several other issues were concerned the use
>of liquid boosters had major benafits.  Anybody got the major facts here??

Liquid boosters are superior in nearly every way except development cost.
That issue is what kept them off the shuttle in the beginning; that issue
is what is keeping them off it now.
-- 
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
From: "jeff sumner" <jeff.sumner@canrem.com>
Subject: shuttle manifest req
Reply-To: "jeff sumner" <jeff.sumner@canrem.com>
Organization: Canada Remote Systems
Distribution: sci
Date: 1 Oct 92 22:21:31 EST

to: archive-server@ames.arc.nasa.gov

send space FAQ/manifest


                +-----------------------------------------+
                |     Jeff Sumner - ZORAC Development     |
                |            Oakville, Ontario            |
                |         jeff.sumner@canrem.uucp         |
                +-----------------------------------------+

                   Coming to you live on OS/2 2.0!!!
---
  DeLuxe 1.21 #10003  
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
From: dickenjd@ctrvx1.vanderbilt.edu (DICKENJD)
Subject: Re: Seeking Brad Mears
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Vanderbilt University
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 04:30:00 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.172118.1@fnalf.fnal.gov>, higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes...
>Is Brad Mears out there?  I would like to see (posted or by e-mail)
>a copy of your Shuttle computer FAQs.  Efforts to e-mail you at 
>bmears@deltahp.jsc.nasa.gov have been fruitless.
	A shuttle computer faq sounds interesting. If it gets found, 
mail a copy to me also.

Thanks....
	
J. David Dickens . . . dickenjd@ctrvx1.vanderbilt.edu 
> 
>Bill Higgins, Beam Jockey              | "Treat your password like
>Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory  | your toothbrush.  Don't let
>Bitnet:           HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET  | anybody else use it--
>Internet:       HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV  | and get a new one every
>SPAN/Hepnet:           43011::HIGGINS  | six months."  --Cliff Stoll
From: wo04+@andrew.cmu.edu (William F. O'Dell)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: Gravity in Space
Date: 1 Oct 92 10:05:20 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.EemnrUC00WBKA3x68W
Organization: Junior, Design, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA



I'm not sure if this has been discussed before, so bear with me.

What would it take to create gravity in space. Couldn't say Space
Station Freedom be put on a spin to create gravity? How much power would
they need?

Furman
wo04@andrew.cmu.edu
From: msjohnso@donald.WichitaKS.NCR.COM (Mark Johnson)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: Gemini Ejection Seats
Date: 25 Sep 92 19:02:41 GMT
Reply-To: msjohnso@donald.WichitaKS.NCR.COM (Mark Johnson)
Organization: NCR Corporation Wichita, KS

In article <BupHFA.J71@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>
>The reason they were practical is that the Titan II's hypergolic fuels
>would ignite on contact, eliminating the possibility of the fuels mixing
>and then exploding.  The reduced potential for a massive explosion meant
>less need for lots of distance in a hurry.

I've heard this cited many times; I wonder if anyone ever re-thought the 
decision to go without an escape tower in light of the Titan II accident
in Arkansas a few years back...due to a massive leak, the missile blew hard
enough to send the (rather heavy) Mark VI re-entry vehicle several hundred
yards out into the Arkansas brush. It was only located after an hours-long
search of the surrounding area.

Of course, the accident could have been worsened by the confinement in a 
silo. I can't remember if the blast door was open at the time.
-- 
Mark Johnson                          USnail: NCR Peripheral Products Division
E-mail:  Mark.Johnson@WichitaKS.NCR.COM       3718 N. Rock Rd.
Voice: (316) 636-8189 [V+ 654-8189]           Wichita, KS  67226
[Non-business email: 76670.1775@compuserve.com]
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
From: i0c0256@zeus.tamu.edu (IGOR)
Subject: con artist at NASA KSC... was in special edition yesterday
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 22:59:00 GMT

Has anybody seen the broadcast ' special edition' yesterday (monday)
about this guy who used to do things he was not allowed to do.
This guy seems to have been able to get into the astronaut training at
KSC without any qualification....NASA did not seem to bother
to check his record before a year and finally find that he
never been a pilot nor have been in the military at all. Does anybody know
more about this con artist...




Igor
Texas A&M University

Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
From: phfrom@nyx.uni-konstanz.de (Hartmut Frommert)
Subject: Re: STS-47 "by the numbers"
Organization: Dept. of Physics, University of Constance
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 14:54:28 GMT

mcmillan@vf.jsc.nasa.gov writes:

>                   STS-47 "by the numbers"
>                     by James Oberg

>STS-47 is the world's 151st manned orbital mission.  It's the 49th orbital
>mission of a US space shuttle, and the 50th manned STS launch (counting 51-L);
>it is the 25th mission since Return-to Flight, and the 78th US manned orbital
>flight overall; the USSR/CIS has made 73, plus two known launch aborts.  

Also you may count the 5 manned Enterprise free (test) flights, so that you
have (49+5=) 54 manned Shuttle landings.
 Hartmut Frommert                 <phfrom@nyx.uni-konstanz.de>
 Dept of Physics, Univ of Constance, P.O.Box 55 60, D-W-7750 Konstanz, Germany
                                           -- Eat whale killers, not whales --
From: cpetersn@iastate.edu (Clifton R Peterson)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: SRB & Mac Portable...
Date: 27 Sep 92 19:06:58 GMT
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA

In <1992Sep27.134207.5664@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov writes:

>In article <1992Sep25.144349.3511@titan.ksc.nasa.gov> hollis@titan.ksc.nasa.gov (Ken Hollis) writes:
>>          [...]   An old Mac Portable did fly on a previous flight.
>work properly.  This drives us to fly ballast on almost every flight.


Yes, I'd say that ballast is a perfectly suited use for the original Mac
portables. <g>
-- 
 _________________________________________________________________________
/ Clifton R. Peterson    1108 Burnett		(515)232-5254	    	  \
| B.S. Chem E            Ames IA  50010                                   |
\_______________"42"_is_one_hell_of_an_answer!!___________________________/
From: whitten@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: Ballast on Shuttle? (was Re: SRB & Mac Portable...)
Date: 30 Sep 92 13:03:30 CDT
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services


In article <1992Sep30.025759.9551@NeoSoft.com>, tjb@NeoSoft.com (Timothy J. Bogart) writes:
> Actually, the flags they fly help cause the need for ballast.  The
> beastie is nose heavy.  Ballast is lead weights  mounted on the
> longerons in the back.
-- 

Or GAS canisters. :P

Regards,
Chris
(G-255)

==============================================================================
 WHITTEN@KUHUB.CC.UKANS.EDU                  Chris Whittenburg, N0TWA
 WHITTEN@UKANVAX.bitnet              Univ. of Kansas - Electrical Engineering
==============================================================================

Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
From: dickenjd@ctrvx1.vanderbilt.edu (DICKENJD)
Subject: ames.arc.nasa.gov
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Vanderbilt University
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 06:15:00 GMT

	I've been browsing around the ames.arc.nasa.gov site recently,
and was wondering: When does the /pub/SPACE/DOC.SHUTTLE directory
get updated? Also, is there a LISTSERV that will send individual 
users the Nasa Daily News?
Thanks....

J. David Dickens . . . . dickenjd@ctrvx1.vanderbilt.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
From: oliver@vf.jsc.nasa.gov
Subject: Re: Columbia, STS-52 crew practice
Organization: NASA Johnson Space Center
Date: 1 Oct 92 07:46:54 -0600

In article <1992Oct1.111627.1703@gp.co.nz>, gpwrsjd@gp.co.nz writes:
> HI shuttle fans,
> A comment in the following article posted to sci.space
> 
> In article <1992Sep30.202220.17578@news.arc.nasa.gov>, 
> 	yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) posted:
>>           KSC News Release No. 136-92
>>           NOTES TO EDITORS:
>>           COLUMBIA AT PAD 39-B, STS-52 COUNTDOWN TEST ON OCT. 1-2
> 
> 	there was the following reference:
> 
>>                While here,  the crew will receive training in emergency es-
>>           cape procedures at the launch  pad,  practice  driving  the  M113
>>           tracked  vehicles  and  practice  flying  in the Shuttle Training
>>           Aircraft.
> 
> What is the M113 and what is its purpose for shuttle crews (other than
> for "training purposes", specifics please :-)?
> My curiosity has been tweeked and is wanting an answer.
> 

The M113 is an armoured personnel carrier vehicle used for emergency escape
from the launch pad area.  To reach the vehicle the crew will climb into a
basket that travels down a slidewire away from the pad.  The crew then climbs
into the vehicle and travels to a bunker where they will be able to survive an
on-pad explosion of the shuttle.  For the training exercise the crew does not
actually ride down the slidewire in the basket due to the risk involved.  

> --
> Regards: Stephen J. Dixon           email: stephen@gpwd.gp.co.nz

-- 

Pat Oliver -  	Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company at NASA JSC
		OLIVER@vf.jsc.nasa.gov
		All standard disclamers apply.
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
From: kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov
Subject: Re: SRB & Mac Portable...
Originator: kjenks@gothamcity
Keywords: danger
Organization: NASA/JSC/GM2, Space Shuttle Program Office
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 04:28:53 GMT

I wrote:
>>As in any aircraft, the CG affects the stability of the vehicle in
>>aerodynamic (gliding) flight.  In the Shuttle, the CG must be within
>>a very narrow band (a couple of inches) for the flight software to
>>work properly.  This drives us to fly ballast on almost every flight.

caf@omen.UUCP (Chuck Forsberg) replied:
>Sounds like a serious danger if an emergency de-orbit should be required
>in the middle of a mission...

No danger, but it does constrain our on-orbit crew activities a
little.  We can't land with something really massive out of its
pre-planned position or we shift the CG.  Even the Contingency Deorbit
Checklist (a plan we've never used which allows FAST [20 minute]
deorbit) allows us a little time to restow the cabin.

My friend Marianne Dyson wrote about a contingency deorbit in one
of the stories she sold to Analog.  The story included a mid-air 
ditch using the "Crew Escape System" pole (note acronym).  
Very dramatic.

-- Ken Jenks, NASA/JSC/GM2, Space Shuttle Program Office
      kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov  (713) 483-4368

     "NASA turns dreams into realities and makes science fiction
      into fact" -- Daniel S. Goldin, NASA Administrator
From: higgins@fnalc.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Ballast on Shuttle? (was Re: SRB & Mac Portable...)
Date: 29 Sep 92 00:39:19 GMT
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory

In article <1992Sep27.134207.5664@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>, kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov writes:
> As in any aircraft, the CG affects the stability of the vehicle in
> aerodynamic (gliding) flight.  In the Shuttle, the CG must be within
> a very narrow band (a couple of inches) for the flight software to
> work properly.  This drives us to fly ballast on almost every flight.

Boy, *this* is intriguing.  What form does the ballast take?  Can we
buy souvenir ballast that has flown into space?  Can NASA be persuaded
to fly, say, my teddy bear as contingency ballast?

     O~~*           /_) ' / /   /_/ '  ,   ,  ' ,_  _           \|/
   - ~ -~~~~~~~~~~~/_) / / /   / / / (_) (_) / / / _\~~~~~~~~~~~zap!
 /       \                          (_) (_)                    / | \
 |       |     Bill Higgins   Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
 \       /     Bitnet:     HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET
   -   -       Internet:  HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV
     ~         SPAN/Hepnet:      43011::HIGGINS 
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
From: kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov
Subject: Re: SRB & Mac Portable...
Originator: kjenks@gothamcity
Organization: NASA/JSC/GM2, Space Shuttle Program Office
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 13:42:07 GMT

In article <1992Sep25.144349.3511@titan.ksc.nasa.gov> hollis@titan.ksc.nasa.gov (Ken Hollis) writes:
>          [...]   An old Mac Portable did fly on a previous flight.  There are
>rumours that another payload had to be left behind to allow for the weight of
>the Mac Portable and battery... ;-)

Ken's rumor is true, but false.  There are always other things we'd
like to fly, but the Flight Integration Managers can't always find the
stowage space and other consumable commodities (launch mass, power,
crew time, cooling, etc.) to fit them all in.

Usually, when there's a middeck payload that gets bumped by another
middeck payload, the problem is stowage space, locker weight limits, or
center-of-gravity (CG) constraints, not "to allow for the weight"
of the payloads.

As in any aircraft, the CG affects the stability of the vehicle in
aerodynamic (gliding) flight.  In the Shuttle, the CG must be within
a very narrow band (a couple of inches) for the flight software to
work properly.  This drives us to fly ballast on almost every flight.

-- Ken Jenks, NASA/JSC/GM2, Space Shuttle Program Office
      kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov  (713) 483-4368

     "NASA turns dreams into realities and makes science fiction
      into fact" -- Daniel S. Goldin, NASA Administrator
From: kwp@wag.caltech.edu (Kevin W. Plaxco)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: More 0 ring problems....
Date: 30 Sep 1992 21:41:03 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: sgi1.wag.caltech.edu

In article <BvCwB4.KCK@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:

>Actually, far and away the best proposal for a new SRB (short of the best
>method, scrap them and build an LRB) was George Koopman's proposal to
>build an HRB using Amroc's hybrid-rocket technology.  

This one's new on me.  What is hybrid-rocket technology?

-Kevin
From: gascan@dcst16.dc (Bill Gascoyne)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: STS-47 "by the numbers"
Date: 1 Oct 92 16:09:37 GMT
Reply-To: gascan@dcst16.dc
Organization: LSI Logic Corporation

In article 4939@news.eng.convex.com, dodson@convex.COM (Dave Dodson) writes:
> 
> Are you counting the lunar flights?  They all went into earth orbit, and
> all but Apollo 13 entered lunar orbit as well.

I take it you don't count once around as an 'orbit'.  Apollo 13 did go around the
moon; they certainly didn't stop halfway there and come back.

---
1. Bill Gascoyne
From: drg@biomath.mda.uth.tmc.edu (David Gutierrez)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: Gravity-NEUTRALIZING Space Shuttle
Date: 2 Oct 92 17:52:19 GMT
Organization: Univ. Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center

You'd have fewer moving parts if you just added a layer of Cavorite under the
Shuttle's tiles.
 
David Gutierrez
drg@biomath.mda.uth.tmc.edu

"Only fools are positive." - Moe Howard
From: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Smoother Shuttle launches?
Date: 29 Sep 92 17:00:21 GMT
Reply-To: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu
Organization: Computer Aided Design Lab, U. of Maryland College Park

Is it my imagination, or have the last three/four shuttle flights been
exceptionally smooth in getting to orbit without headaches? 


                 Play in the intelluctual sandbox of Usenet 

  -- >                  SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU                        < --
From: strange@zk3.dec.com (Steve Strange)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: Ballast on Shuttle? (was Re: SRB & Mac Portable...)
Date: 29 Sep 92 16:10:29 GMT
	<1992Sep27.134207.5664@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>
	<1992Sep28.183919.1@fnalc.fnal.gov>
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp.

In article <1992Sep28.183919.1@fnalc.fnal.gov> higgins@fnalc.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:

   In article <1992Sep27.134207.5664@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>, kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov writes:
   > As in any aircraft, the CG affects the stability of the vehicle in
   > aerodynamic (gliding) flight.  In the Shuttle, the CG must be within
   > a very narrow band (a couple of inches) for the flight software to
   > work properly.  This drives us to fly ballast on almost every flight.

   Boy, *this* is intriguing.  What form does the ballast take?  Can we
   buy souvenir ballast that has flown into space?  Can NASA be persuaded
   to fly, say, my teddy bear as contingency ballast?

One form it takes is boxes of small US flags.  When the flags return,
they glue them onto certificates and give them to many of the folks
involved with that particular flight.  My dad has at least five of
these.

	Steve
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle