I did not realize that the website you listed was the definitive and final place which determines craters vs pits. It seems that some of the top scientists in the world think that it is a crater, perhaps you should enlighten them. Carancas is a crater, and I am not sure:), but I do believe that the impact of a meteorite created it, thus, I am still confused, but would that not tend to suggest that it is meteoritic? Adam, I think regardless of whether it is a common chondrite, the simple fact that it exists forces science to re-calculate its models for impact craters by chondrites. So Carancas is extremely important. I forsee papers written about Carancas for decades. There will be no roof built, the crater is already mostly destroyed (as I predicted that it would be, thanks to those of us who went there, at least some material was preserved). Michael Farmer
--- Adam Hupe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Mike and List Members, > > To me, Carancas produced an "impact pit" which is a > form of crater. I will concede the point that it is > also a crater by other definitions, just not > meteoritic. The Sikhote Alin event also produced > several impact pits that were described as such > further constraining the meteoritic definition of an > impact crater. > > Here is a great reference site that clearly defines > crater sizes of 5-20 meters as "impact pits". > Carancas only produced a 13 meter mud hole squarely > defining it as a pit. > > http://www.somerikko.net/old/geo/imp/listinfo.htm > > Pretty soon, the Carancas impact pit it will be no > more than a depression in the ground with urine, > fecal > matter and trash in it. Not to forget, a $90,000.00 > roof will be added on top of a rotted out and the > most > common type of ordinary chondrite in existence at > the > bottom. > > All the best, > > Adam > > ______________________________________________ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list