home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
Space & Astronomy
/
Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso
/
mac
/
TEXT_ZIP
/
spacedig
/
V16_5
/
V16NO521.ZIP
/
V16NO521
Wrap
Internet Message Format
|
1993-07-13
|
30KB
Date: Wed, 5 May 93 05:41:01
From: Space Digest maintainer <digests@isu.isunet.edu>
Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu
Subject: Space Digest V16 #521
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk
Space Digest Wed, 5 May 93 Volume 16 : Issue 521
Today's Topics:
Space FAQ 08/15 - Addresses
Space FAQ 09/15 - Mission Schedules
Space FAQ 12/15 - Controversial Questions
Welcome to the Space Digest!! Please send your messages to
"space@isu.isunet.edu", and (un)subscription requests of the form
"Subscribe Space <your name>" to one of these addresses: listserv@uga
(BITNET), rice::boyle (SPAN/NSInet), utadnx::utspan::rice::boyle
(THENET), or space-REQUEST@isu.isunet.edu (Internet).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 3 May 1993 12:19:39 -0400
From: Jon Leech <leech@cs.unc.edu>
Subject: Space FAQ 08/15 - Addresses
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.answers,news.answers
Archive-name: space/addresses
Last-modified: $Date: 93/05/03 12:07:47 $
CONTACTING NASA, ESA, AND OTHER SPACE AGENCIES/COMPANIES
Many space activities center around large Government or International
Bureaucracies. In the US that means NASA. If you have basic information
requests: (e.g., general PR info, research grants, data, limited tours, and
ESPECIALLY SUMMER EMPLOYMENT (typically resumes should be ready by Jan. 1),
etc.), consider contacting the nearest NASA Center to answer your questions.
EMail typically will not get you any where, computers are used by
investigators, not PR people. The typical volume of mail per Center is a
multiple of 10,000 letters a day. Seek the Public Information Office at one
of the below, this is their job:
NASA (The National Aeronautics and Space Administration) is the
civilian space agency of of the United States Federal Government.
It reports directly to the White House and is not a Cabinet
post such as the military Department of Defense. Its 20K+ employees
are civil servants and hence US citizens. Another 100K+ contractors
also work for NASA.
NASA CENTERS
NASA Headquarters (NASA HQ)
Washington DC 20546
(202)-358-1600
Ask them questions about policy, money, and things of political
nature. Direct specific questions to the appropriate center.
NASA Ames Research Center (ARC)
Moffett Field, CA 94035
(415)-694-5091
Some aeronautical research, atmosphere reentry, Mars and Venus
planetary atmospheres. "Lead center" for Helicopter research,
V/STOL, etc. Runs Pioneer series of space probes.
NASA Ames Research Center
Dryden Flight Research Facility [DFRF]
P. O. Box 273
Edwards, CA 93523
(805)-258-8381
Aircraft, mostly. Tested the shuttle orbiter landing
characteristics. Developed X-1, D-558, X-3, X-4, X-5, XB-70, and of
course, the X-15.
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC)
Greenbelt, MD 20771
[Outside of Washington DC]
(301)-344-6255
Earth orbiting unmanned satellites and sounding rockets. Developed
LANDSAT.
Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL)
California Institute of Technology
4800 Oak Grove Dr.
Pasadena, CA 91109
(818)-354-5011
The "heavies" in planetary research probes and other unmanned
projects (they also had a lot to do with IRAS). They run Voyager,
Magellan, Galileo, and will run Cassini, CRAF, etc. etc.. For
images, probe navigation, and other info about unmanned exploration,
this is the place to go.
JPL is run under contract for NASA by the nearby California
Institute of Technology, unlike the NASA centers above. This
distinction is subtle but critical. JPL has different requirements
for unsolicited research proposals and summer hires. For instance in
the latter, an SF 171 is useless. Employees are Caltech employees,
contractors, and for the most part have similar responsibilities.
They offer an alternative to funding after other NASA Centers.
A fact sheet and description of JPL is available by anonymous
FTP in
ames.arc.nasa.gov:pub/SPACE/FAQ/JPLDescription
NASA Johnson Manned Space Center (JSC)
Houston, TX 77058
(713)-483-5111
JSC manages Space Shuttle, ground control of manned missions.
Astronaut training. Manned mission simulators.
NASA Kennedy Space Flight Center (KSC)
Titusville, FL 32899
(407)-867-2468
Space launch center. You know this one.
NASA Langley Research Center (LaRC)
Hampton, VA 23665
[Near Newport News, VA]
(804)-865-2935
Original NASA site. Specializes in theoretical and experimental
flight dynamics. Viking. Long Duration Exposure Facility.
NASA Lewis Research Center (LeRC)
21000 Brookpark Rd.
Cleveland, OH 44135
(216)-433-4000
Aircraft/Rocket propulsion. Space power generation. Materials
research.
NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC)
Huntsville, AL 35812
(205)-453-0034
Development, production, delivery of Solid Rocket Boosters, External
Tank, Orbiter main engines. Propulsion and launchers.
Michoud Assembly Facility
Orleans Parish
New Orleans, LA 70129
(504)-255-2601
Shuttle external tanks are produced here; formerly Michoud produced
first stages for the Saturn V.
Stennis Space Center
Bay St. Louis, Mississippi 39529
(601)-688-3341
Space Shuttle main engines are tested here, as were Saturn V first
and second stages. The center also does remote-sensing and
technology-transfer research.
Wallops Flight Center
Wallops Island, VA 23337
(804)824-3411
Aeronautical research, sounding rockets, Scout launcher.
Manager, Technology Utilization Office
NASA Scientific and Technical Information Facility
Post Office Box 8757
Baltimore, Maryland 21240
Specific requests for software must go thru COSMIC at the Univ. of
Georgia, NASA's contracted software redistribution service. You can
reach them at cosmic@uga.bitnet.
NOTE: Foreign nationals requesting information must go through their
Embassies in Washington DC. These are facilities of the US Government
and are regarded with some degree of economic sensitivity. Centers
cannot directly return information without high Center approval. Allow
at least 1 month for clearance. This includes COSMIC.
The US Air Force Space Command can be contacted thru the Pentagon along with
other Department of Defense offices. They have unacknowledged offices in
Los Angeles, Sunnyvale, Colorado Springs, and other locations. They have
a budget which rivals NASA in size.
ARIANESPACE HEADQUARTERS
Boulevard de l'Europe
B.P. 177
91006 Evry Cedex
France
ARIANESPACE, INC.
1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Suite 875
Washington, DC 20006
(202)-728-9075
EUROPEAN SPACE AGENCY (ESA)
955 L'Enfant Plaza S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20024
(202)-488-4158
NATIONAL SPACE DEVELOPMENT AGENCY (NASDA)
4-1 Hamamatsu-Cho, 2 Chome
Minato-Ku, Tokyo 105, JAPAN
SOYUZKARTA
45 Vologradsij Pr.
Moscow 109125
USSR
SPACE CAMP
Alabama Space and Rocket Center U.S. SPACE CAMP
1 Tranquility Base 6225 Vectorspace Blvd
Huntsville, AL 35805 Titusville FL 32780
(205)-837-3400 (407)267-3184
Registration and mailing list are handled through Huntsville -- both
camps are described in the same brochure.
Programs offered at Space Camp are:
Space Camp - one week, youngsters completing grades 4-6
Space Academy I - one week, grades 7-9
Aviation Challenge - one week high school program, grades 9-11
Space Academy II - 8 days, college accredited, grades 10-12
Adult Program - 3 days (editorial comment: it's great!)
Teachers Program - 5 days
SPACE COMMERCE CORPORATION (U.S. agent for Soviet launch services)
504 Pluto Drive 69th flr, Texas Commerce Tower
Colorado Springs, CO 80906 Houston, TX 77002
(719)-578-5490 (713)-227-9000
SPACEHAB
600 Maryland Avenue, SW
Suite 201 West
Washington, DC 20004
(202)-488-3483
SPACE INDUSTRIES, INC.
101 Courageous Dr.
Leage City, TX 77573
(713) 538-6000
SPOT IMAGE CORPORATION
1857 Preston White Drive,
Reston, VA 22091
(FAX) (703)-648-1813 (703)-620-2200
OTHER COMMERCIAL SPACE BUSINESSES
Vincent Cate maintains a list with addresses and some info for a variety
of companies in space-related businesses. This is mailed out on the
space-investors list he runs (see the "Network Resources" FAQ) and is also
available by anonymous ftp from furmint.nectar.cs.cmu.edu (128.2.209.111) in
/usr2/anon/space-companies.
NEXT: FAQ #9/15 - Schedules for space missions, and how to see them
------------------------------
Date: 3 May 1993 12:20:17 -0400
From: Jon Leech <leech@cs.unc.edu>
Subject: Space FAQ 09/15 - Mission Schedules
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.answers,news.answers
Archive-name: space/schedule
Last-modified: $Date: 93/05/03 12:08:17 $
SPACE SHUTTLE ANSWERS, LAUNCH SCHEDULES, TV COVERAGE
SHUTTLE LAUNCHINGS AND LANDINGS; SCHEDULES AND HOW TO SEE THEM
Shuttle operations are discussed in the Usenet group sci.space.shuttle,
and Ken Hollis (gandalf@pro-electric.cts.com) posts a compressed version
of the shuttle manifest (launch dates and other information)
periodically there. The manifest is also available from the Ames SPACE
archive in SPACE/FAQ/manifest. The portion of his manifest formerly
included in this FAQ has been removed; please refer to his posting or
the archived copy. For the most up to date information on upcoming
missions, call (407) 867-INFO (867-4636) at Kennedy Space Center.
Official NASA shuttle status reports are posted to sci.space.news
frequently.
WHY DOES THE SHUTTLE ROLL JUST AFTER LIFTOFF?
The following answer and translation are provided by Ken Jenks
(kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov).
The "Ascent Guidance and Flight Control Training Manual," ASC G&C 2102,
says:
"During the vertical rise phase, the launch pad attitude is
commanded until an I-loaded V(rel) sufficient to assure launch tower
clearance is achieved. Then, the tilt maneuver (roll program)
orients the vehicle to a heads down attitude required to generate a
negative q-alpha, which in turn alleviates structural loading. Other
advantages with this attitude are performance gain, decreased abort
maneuver complexity, improved S-band look angles, and crew view of
the horizon. The tilt maneuver is also required to start gaining
downrange velocity to achieve the main engine cutoff (MECO) target
in second stage."
This really is a good answer, but it's couched in NASA jargon. I'll try
to interpret.
1) We wait until the Shuttle clears the tower before rolling.
2) Then, we roll the Shuttle around so that the angle of attack
between the wind caused by passage through the atmosphere (the
"relative wind") and the chord of the wings (the imaginary line
between the leading edge and the trailing edge) is a slightly
negative angle ("a negative q-alpha"). This causes a little bit of
"downward" force (toward the belly of the Orbiter, or the +Z
direction) and this force "alleviates structural loading."
We have to be careful about those wings -- they're about the
most "delicate" part of the vehicle.
3) The new attitude (after the roll) also allows us to carry more
mass to orbit, or to achieve a higher orbit with the same mass, or
to change the orbit to a higher or lower inclination than would be
the case if we didn't roll ("performance gain").
4) The new attitude allows the crew to fly a less complicated
flight path if they had to execute one of the more dangerous abort
maneuvers, the Return To Launch Site ("decreased abort maneuver
complexity").
5) The new attitude improves the ability for ground-based radio
antennae to have a good line-of-sight signal with the S-band radio
antennae on the Orbiter ("improved S-band look angles").
6) The new attitude allows the crew to see the horizon, which is a
helpful (but not mandatory) part of piloting any flying machine.
7) The new attitude orients the Shuttle so that the body is
more nearly parallel with the ground, and the nose to the east
(usually). This allows the thrust from the engines to add velocity
in the correct direction to eventually achieve orbit. Remember:
velocity is a vector quantity made of both speed and direction.
The Shuttle has to have a large horizontal component to its
velocity and a very small vertical component to attain orbit.
This all begs the question, "Why isn't the launch pad oriented to give
this nice attitude to begin with? Why does the Shuttle need to roll to
achieve that attitude?" The answer is that the pads were leftovers
from the Apollo days. The Shuttle straddles two flame trenches -- one
for the Solid Rocket Motor exhaust, one for the Space Shuttle Main
Engine exhaust. (You can see the effects of this on any daytime
launch. The SRM exhaust is dirty gray garbage, and the SSME exhaust is
fluffy white steam. Watch for the difference between the "top"
[Orbiter side] and the "bottom" [External Tank side] of the stack.) The
access tower and other support and service structure are all oriented
basically the same way they were for the Saturn V's. (A side note: the
Saturn V's also had a roll program. Don't ask me why -- I'm a Shuttle
guy.)
I checked with a buddy in Ascent Dynamics. He added that the "roll
maneuver" is really a maneuver in all three axes: roll, pitch and yaw.
The roll component of that maneuver is performed for the reasons
stated. The pitch component controls loading on the wings by keeping
the angle of attack (q-alpha) within a tight tolerance. The yaw
component is used to determine the orbital inclination. The total
maneuver is really expressed as a "quaternion," a grad-level-math
concept for combining all three rotation matrices in one four-element
array.
HOW TO RECEIVE THE NASA TV CHANNEL, NASA SELECT
NASA SELECT is broadcast by satellite. If you have access to a satellite
dish, you can find SELECT on Satcom F2R, Transponder 13, C-Band, 72
degrees West Longitude, Audio 6.8, Frequency 3960 MHz. F2R is stationed
over the Atlantic, and is increasingly difficult to receive from
California and points west. During events of special interest (e.g.
shuttle missions), SELECT is sometimes broadcast on a second satellite
for these viewers.
If you can't get a satellite feed, some cable operators carry SELECT.
It's worth asking if yours doesn't.
The SELECT schedule is found in the NASA Headline News which is
frequently posted to sci.space.news. Generally it carries press
conferences, briefings by NASA officials, and live coverage of shuttle
missions and planetary encounters. SELECT has recently begun carrying
much more secondary material (associated with SPACELINK) when missions
are not being covered.
AMATEUR RADIO FREQUENCIES FOR SHUTTLE MISSIONS
The following are believed to rebroadcast space shuttle mission audio:
W6FXN - Los Angeles
K6MF - Ames Research Center, Mountain View, California
WA3NAN - Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC), Greenbelt, Maryland.
W5RRR - Johnson Space Center (JSC), Houston, Texas
W6VIO - Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), Pasadena, California.
W1AW Voice Bulletins
Station VHF 10m 15m 20m 40m 80m
------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ----- -----
W6FXN 145.46
K6MF 145.585 7.165 3.840
WA3NAN 147.45 28.650 21.395 14.295 7.185 3.860
W5RRR 146.64 28.400 21.350 14.280 7.227 3.850
W6VIO 224.04 21.340 14.270
W6VIO 224.04 21.280 14.282 7.165 3.840
W1AW 28.590 21.390 14.290 7.290 3.990
W5RRR transmits mission audio on 146.64, a special event station on the
other frequencies supplying Keplerian Elements and mission information.
W1AW also transmits on 147.555, 18.160. No mission audio but they
transmit voice bulletins at 0245 and 0545 UTC.
Frequencies in the 10-20m bands require USB and frequencies in the 40
and 80m bands LSB. Use FM for the VHF frequencies.
[This item was most recently updated courtesy of Gary Morris
(g@telesoft.com, KK6YB, N5QWC)]
SOLID ROCKET BOOSTER FUEL COMPOSITION
Reference: "Shuttle Flight Operations Manual" Volume 8B - Solid Rocket
Booster Systems, NASA Document JSC-12770
Propellant Composition (percent)
Ammonium perchlorate (oxidizer) 69.6
Aluminum 16
Iron Oxide (burn rate catalyst) 0.4
Polybutadiene-acrilic acid-acrylonitrile (a rubber) 12.04
Epoxy curing agent 1.96
End reference
Comment: The aluminum, rubber, and epoxy all burn with the oxidizer.
NEXT: FAQ #10/15 - Historical planetary probes
------------------------------
Date: 3 May 1993 12:22:14 -0400
From: Jon Leech <leech@cs.unc.edu>
Subject: Space FAQ 12/15 - Controversial Questions
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.answers,news.answers
Archive-name: space/controversy
Last-modified: $Date: 93/05/03 12:07:59 $
CONTROVERSIAL QUESTIONS
These issues periodically come up with much argument and few facts being
offered. The summaries below attempt to represent the position on which
much of the net community has settled. Please DON'T bring them up again
unless there's something truly new to be discussed. The net can't set
public policy, that's what your representatives are for.
WHAT HAPPENED TO THE SATURN V PLANS
Despite a widespread belief to the contrary, the Saturn V blueprints
have not been lost. They are kept at Marshall Space Flight Center on
microfilm.
The problem in re-creating the Saturn V is not finding the drawings, it
is finding vendors who can supply mid-1960's vintage hardware (like
guidance system components), and the fact that the launch pads and VAB
have been converted to Space Shuttle use, so you have no place to launch
from.
By the time you redesign to accommodate available hardware and re-modify
the launch pads, you may as well have started from scratch with a clean
sheet design.
WHY DATA FROM SPACE MISSIONS ISN'T IMMEDIATELY AVAILABLE
Investigators associated with NASA missions are allowed exclusive access
for one year after the data is obtained in order to give them an
opportunity to analyze the data and publish results without being
"scooped" by people uninvolved in the mission. However, NASA frequently
releases examples (in non-digital form, e.g. photos) to the public early
in a mission.
RISKS OF NUCLEAR (RTG) POWER SOURCES FOR SPACE PROBES
There has been extensive discussion on this topic sparked by attempts to
block the Galileo and Ulysses launches on grounds of the plutonium
thermal sources being dangerous. Numerous studies claim that even in
worst-case scenarios (shuttle explosion during launch, or accidental
reentry at interplanetary velocities), the risks are extremely small.
Two interesting data points are (1) The May 1968 loss of two SNAP 19B2
RTGs, which landed intact in the Pacific Ocean after a Nimbus B weather
satellite failed to reach orbit. The fuel was recovered after 5 months
with no release of plutonium. (2) In April 1970, the Apollo 13 lunar
module reentered the atmosphere and its SNAP 27 RTG heat source, which
was jettisoned, fell intact into the 20,000 feet deep Tonga Trench in
the Pacific Ocean. The corrosion resistant materials of the RTG are
expected to prevent release of the fuel for a period of time equal to 10
half-lives of the Pu-238 fuel or about 870 years [DOE 1980].
To make your own informed judgement, some references you may wish to
pursue are:
A good review of the technical facts and issues is given by Daniel
Salisbury in "Radiation Risk and Planetary Exploration-- The RTG
Controversy," *Planetary Report*, May-June 1987, pages 3-7. Another good
article, which also reviews the events preceding Galileo's launch,
"Showdown at Pad 39-B," by Robert G. Nichols, appeared in the November
1989 issue of *Ad Astra*. (Both magazines are published by pro-space
organizations, the Planetary Society and the National Space Society
respectively.)
Gordon L Chipman, Jr., "Advanced Space Nuclear Systems" (AAS 82-261), in
*Developing the Space Frontier*, edited by Albert Naumann and Grover
Alexander, Univelt, 1983, p. 193-213.
"Hazards from Plutonium Toxicity", by Bernard L. Cohen, Health Physics,
Vol 32 (may) 1977, page 359-379.
NUS Corporation, Safety Status Report for the Ulysses Mission: Risk
Analysis (Book 1). Document number is NUS 5235; there is no GPO #;
published Jan 31, 1990.
NASA Office of Space Science and Applications, *Final Environmental
Impact Statement for the Ulysses Mission (Tier 2)*, (no serial number or
GPO number, but probably available from NTIS or NASA) June 1990.
[DOE 1980] U.S. Department of Energy, *Transuranic Elements in the
Environment*, Wayne C. Hanson, editor; DOE Document No. DOE/TIC-22800;
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., April 1980.)
IMPACT OF THE SPACE SHUTTLE ON THE OZONE LAYER
From time to time, claims are made that chemicals released from
the Space Shuttle's Solid Rocket Boosters (SRBs) are responsible
for a significant amount of damage to the ozone layer. Studies
indicate that they in reality have only a minute impact, both in
absolute terms and relative to other chemical sources. The
remainder of this item is a response from the author of the quoted
study, Charles Jackman.
The atmospheric modelling study of the space shuttle effects on the
stratosphere involved three independent theoretical groups, and was
organized by Dr. Michael Prather, NASA/Goddard Institute for Space
Studies. The three groups involved Michael Prather and Maria Garcia
(NASA/GISS), Charlie Jackman and Anne Douglass (NASA/Goddard Space
Flight Center), and Malcolm Ko and Dak Sze (Atmospheric and
Environmental Research, Inc.). The effort was to look at the effects
of the space shuttle and Titan rockets on the stratosphere.
The following are the estimated sources of stratospheric chlorine:
Industrial sources: 300,000,000 kilograms/year
Natural sources: 75,000,000 kilograms/year
Shuttle sources: 725,000 kilograms/year
The shuttle source assumes 9 space shuttles and 6 Titan rockets are
launched yearly. Thus the launches would add less than 0.25% to the
total stratospheric chlorine sources.
The effect on ozone is minimal: global yearly average total ozone would
be decreased by 0.0065%. This is much less than total ozone variability
associated with volcanic activity and solar flares.
The influence of human-made chlorine products on ozone is computed
by atmospheric model calculations to be a 1% decrease in globally
averaged ozone between 1980 and 1990. The influence of the space shuttle and
Titan rockets on the stratosphere is negligible. The launch
schedule of the Space Shuttle and Titan rockets would need to be
increased by over a factor of a hundred in order to have about
the same effect on ozone as our increases in industrial halocarbons
do at the present time.
Theoretical results of this study have been published in _The Space
Shuttle's Impact on the Stratosphere_, MJ Prather, MM Garcia, AR
Douglass, CH Jackman, M.K.W. Ko and N.D. Sze, Journal of Geophysical
Research, 95, 18583-18590, 1990.
Charles Jackman, Atmospheric Chemistry and Dynamics Branch,
Code 916, NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center,
Greenbelt, MD 20771
Also see _Chemical Rockets and the Environment_, A McDonald, R Bennett,
J Hinshaw, and M Barnes, Aerospace America, May 1991.
HOW LONG CAN A HUMAN LIVE UNPROTECTED IN SPACE
If you *don't* try to hold your breath, exposure to space for half a
minute or so is unlikely to produce permanent injury. Holding your
breath is likely to damage your lungs, something scuba divers have to
watch out for when ascending, and you'll have eardrum trouble if your
Eustachian tubes are badly plugged up, but theory predicts -- and animal
experiments confirm -- that otherwise, exposure to vacuum causes no
immediate injury. You do not explode. Your blood does not boil. You do
not freeze. You do not instantly lose consciousness.
Various minor problems (sunburn, possibly "the bends", certainly some
[mild, reversible, painless] swelling of skin and underlying tissue)
start after ten seconds or so. At some point you lose consciousness from
lack of oxygen. Injuries accumulate. After perhaps one or two minutes,
you're dying. The limits are not really known.
References:
_The Effect on the Chimpanzee of Rapid Decompression to a Near Vacuum_,
Alfred G. Koestler ed., NASA CR-329 (Nov 1965).
_Experimental Animal Decompression to a Near Vacuum Environment_, R.W.
Bancroft, J.E. Dunn, eds, Report SAM-TR-65-48 (June 1965), USAF School
of Aerospace Medicine, Brooks AFB, Texas.
HOW THE CHALLENGER ASTRONAUTS DIED
The Challenger shuttle launch was not destroyed in an explosion. This is
a well-documented fact; see the Rogers Commission report, for example.
What looked like an explosion was fuel burning after the external tank
came apart. The forces on the crew cabin were not sufficient to kill the
astronauts, never mind destroy their bodies, according to the Kerwin
team's medical/forensic report.
The astronauts were killed when the more-or-less intact cabin hit the
water at circa 200MPH, and their bodies then spent several weeks
underwater. Their remains were recovered, and after the Kerwin team
examined them, they were sent off to be buried.
USING THE SHUTTLE BEYOND LOW EARTH ORBIT
You can't use the shuttle orbiter for missions beyond low Earth orbit
because it can't get there. It is big and heavy and does not carry
enough fuel, even if you fill part of the cargo bay with tanks.
Furthermore, it is not particularly sensible to do so, because much of
that weight is things like wings, which are totally useless except in
the immediate vicinity of the Earth. The shuttle orbiter is highly
specialized for travel between Earth's surface and low orbit. Taking it
higher is enormously costly and wasteful. A much better approach would
be to use shuttle subsystems to build a specialized high-orbit
spacecraft.
[Yet another concise answer by Henry Spencer.]
THE "FACE ON MARS"
There really is a big rock on Mars that looks remarkably like a humanoid
face. It appears in two different frames of Viking Orbiter imagery:
35A72 (much more facelike in appearance, and the one more often
published, with the Sun 10 degrees above western horizon) and 70A13
(with the Sun 27 degrees from the west).
Science writer Richard Hoagland has championed the idea that the Face is
artificial, intended to resemble a human, and erected by an
extraterrestrial civilization. Most other analysts concede that the
resemblance is most likely accidental. Other Viking images show a
smiley-faced crater and a lava flow resembling Kermit the Frog elsewhere
on Mars. There exists a Mars Anomalies Research Society (sorry, don't
know the address) to study the Face.
The Mars Observer mission will carry an extremely high-resolution
camera, and better images of the formation will hopefully settle this
question in a few years. In the meantime, speculation about the Face is
best carried on in the altnet group alt.alien.visitors, not sci.space or
sci.astro.
V. DiPeitro and G. Molenaar, *Unusual Martian Surface Features*, Mars
Research, P.O. Box 284, Glen Dale, Maryland, USA, 1982. $18 by mail.
R.R. Pozos, *The Face of Mars*, Chicago Review Press, 1986. [Account of
an interdisciplinary speculative conference Hoagland organized to
investigate the Face]
R.C. Hoagland, *The Monuments of Mars: A City on the Edge of Forever*,
North Atlantic Books, Berkeley, California, USA, 1987. [Elaborate
discussion of evidence and speculation that formations near the Face
form a city]
M.J. Carlotto, "Digital Imagery Analysis of Unusual Martian Surface
Features," *Applied Optics*, 27, pp. 1926-1933, 1987. [Extracts
three-dimensional model for the Face from the 2-D images]
M.J. Carlotto & M.C. Stein, "A Method of Searching for Artificial
Objects on Planetary Surfaces," *Journal of the British Interplanetary
Society*, Vol. 43 no. 5 (May 1990), p.209-216. [Uses a fractal image
analysis model to guess whether the Face is artificial]
B. O'Leary, "Analysis of Images of the `Face' on Mars and Possible
Intelligent Origin," *JBIS*, Vol. 43 no. 5 (May 1990), p. 203-208.
[Lights Carlotto's model from the two angles and shows it's consistent;
shows that the Face doesn't look facelike if observed from the surface]
NEXT: FAQ #13/15 - Space activist/interest/research groups & space publications
------------------------------
End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 521
------------------------------