Reading this thread has been entertaining, particularly the discussion about its importance. I am pleased, if also surprised, that there are writers and editors that actually care that much about the accuracy of what they write and edit.

I have had a moderately long technical career, occasionally punctuated by what I now view as futile attempts to get co-workers, most of whom were supposedly well educated, to understand the meaning of the term "acronym". The difficult, and most frustrating, part is in trying to communicate what an acronym is not. COBOL is an acronym, but IBM and BLT are not. ( Since most of the time I have tried to point out the distinction, the reaction that I got was "serious don't care". )

With that as a back drop, I would speculate that since the term OSCAR was coined during a rampant epidemic of the alphabet soup of both government and industry, the term was created for its panache and the actual words for which it would stand were finalized afterward. The strongest evidence that I can bring forth is that it was a common practice at the time. If anyone can tell the story as it happened, or even some of the unverifiable legends of the time, I would enjoy hearing about it.

Sputnik certainly proved that amateurs could receive signal from a radio in a man made satellite. The really great creative spark was suggesting that one could be build, not by the military or a government agency...or even an industrial corporation, but by amateurs, for amateur experimentation. Eventually it had to lead to the need to name it. Amateur radio equipment onboard a satellite. AREOS. Nothing to grab attention there. Satellite with amateur radio - SWAR. Nope. Satellite carrying amateur radio -- SCAR. Better, but not a positive message.

However the name got to OSCAR, it was and still is a good name. Even so, I am a bit troubled by the thought that the expanded name for the project might not have been selected simply for the contraction to OSCAR. Suppose that Orbital ( or perhaps Orbiting ) Satellite Carrying Amateur Radio was really the name and OSCAR came later. What exactly would be the reason to use the combined term "orbital satellite". A quick check of the dictionary suggests to me that in the technical context, satellite is an object that is in orbit. That being the case, why use the term "orbital satellite"? At the time were there "non-orbital satellites" that needed to be distinguished from the amateur radio variety? The dictionary doesn't help, what with all of the different ways that the terms orbital, orbiting, and satellite are used, one can concoct a lot of different concepts, none of which I can tie into the basic concept, which in my mind needs not additional discrimination.

It is only my opinion, but the term OSCAR has outgrown its roots as an acronym. Consider the word "radar". It has been so ingrained into the every day language of our society, even allowing for the dependence of society on technology, that it is no longer recognized as an acronym. Perhaps there are linguistic scholars that can trace its origins, but in the language of today, the term radar has lost its distinction from other words.

So it is within the language of amateur radio. An OSCAR is a recognized thing. The term OSCAR, though perhaps it is still capitalized, invokes direct meaning rather than translation into the components that made up its origin phrase. Perhaps it is a fitting tribute to those whose genius and sweat built and operated OSCARs that the word has been accepted as a normal part of the amateur radio lexicon.

My thanks to each of you, old timers and newcomers alike.

James n5gui