Date: Wed, 5 May 93 05:41:01 From: Space Digest maintainer 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 " 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 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 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 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 ------------------------------