> 2008TC3 at 2 to 5 meters diameter must have > weighed between 10 and 150 metric tons. The > four kilos recovered would suggest a minimum > loss of 99.96%. Of course, there could just as > easily been 40 kilos of which only 10% was > recovered (99.6% loss). Or 400 kilos of which > only 1% was recovered (96% loss). > > I think it unlikely there was 400 kilos reaching > the ground, but quite possible there were 40 kilos. > (Most likely fall weight would be 15 to 25 kilos.) > I don't think all of it was recovered. Strewn fields a > century old still yield up meteorites today. These > loss estimates are based on that lowest weight > estimate of ten tons... At an original 100 metric > tons, the losses would be an order of magnitude > higher.
Regarding 2008TC3, I would like to point at a new and, in my opinion, excellent 4-page-update-summary issued by the NATURE magazine: "The impact and recovery of asteroid 2008TC3" P. Jenniskens et al., NATURE, Vol 458/26 March 2009 You have to pay a fee for an online-copy of the paper when you enter the NATURE website, but may be Professor Jenniskens or Professor Shaddad from Khartoum would be willing to share sort of a preprint or reprint - donĀ“t know. Sorry, I have no email addresses at hands... Alex Berlin/Germany ______________________________________________ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list