Re: [meteorite-list] Unusual new lunar or hokum?

[Pete Pete]

Here's an appropriate news item:

http://www.thanhniennews.com/society/?catid=3&newsid=43452
http://www.thanhniennews.com/society/?catid=3&newsid=43452

Best, 
Pete





> Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 20:14:15 -0800
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Unusual new lunar or hokum?
>
> Mitch, Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. We would like to SEE 
> the proof and I would like the following conflicts resolved to win me over. 
> You could foreclose all the nay saying and skeptics by resolving the 
> following conflicts:
>
> Six+ conflicts in your claims for the Illinois Lunarite are incompatible 
> within your own claims and suggest this is other than a lunar meteorite.
>
> 1. One matching plot out of 8+ graphs isn't proof--in fact it is 
> disqualifying. I can find something somewhere to plot any two substances 
> together with some shared feature. Minus 1
>
> 2. "Lunar Isotopic Oxygen Plot "Match""... Those would be the same as 
> terrestrial plots owing to the Earth-Moon common origin. This match proves 
> only that they originated in the local neighborhood. This doesn't rule out a 
> slag pile in South Chicago and it doesn't rule in the moon. 0/ Neutral
>
> 3. The main mass size you've claimed couldn't physically exist for a 
> meteorite found on earth. There is an envelope of maximum object size that 
> can be launched from the lunar surface via impact that 1) does not melt due 
> to acceleration energies YET 2) have enough mass to survive transit of the 
> atmosphere. That envelope accommodates a original mass of a few kilograms not 
> a few tons. Bonus points lost in that your petrological content doesn't 
> include shock induced masklenite/glass. Minus 2 and also disqualifying.
>
> 4. It is 99.9% improbable to have a valid lunar specimen which is an all 
> inclusive, collective petrology, commingled conglomeration, that contains 
> virtually every single petrological type found in lunar meteorites known to 
> science. The glaring exception would be a melt pile assembled by aliens in a 
> anti-gravity experiment gone arye. Minus 1-- Practically impossible so 
> practically disqualifying.
>
> 5 Two legitimate, proven, qualified, do-it-for-a-living-professional experts 
> on meteorites (who are also list members) have passed judgment on your 
> material, while you have yet to reveal the researchers who did your analysis 
> along with their complete reports.
> Minus 2 Pretty much disqualifying in my book.
>
> 6. Why haven't you dated the material if you've done all the other extensive 
> testing? Why leave out the one test that would prove a date more inline with 
> lunar ages? Minus 1
>
> 7. Why can't you get anyone to come forward to defend your claim and sponsor 
> it before the NonCom Committee. Frankly, every planetary scientist in the 
> world would want a chance at that rock given its exotic preliminary 
> classification. The only thing you didn't claim was antraxite content with 
> fossil life forms--Otherwise, you'd have the perfect and complete 
> meteorite-plus collection in a single specimen. Minus 1
>
> If you are keeping score: Plus 0, Neutral 1, Minus 8. This cannot be a lunar 
> meteorie nor any planetary meteorite--it is not a chondrite so unless you can 
> underpin your claims with something such as an absolute formation age from 
> 100,000 to 300,000 to 4.3± billion years, it can't be a meteorite-- period.
>
> Skeptically but honestly submited
> Elton
>
>> On 11/3/08 5:17 PM, "Patricia Harris" aka Mitch Minor
>  wrote:
> Back in 2005 Ted Bunch confirmed this specimen as a
> 100% meteorite, and he wasmsuppose to classify this meteorite, and publish 
> it. I waited 9 months for classification but Ted never completed it. Since 
> then many tests have been completed to support my classification for this 
> Lunar meteorite specimen. All tests completed offer facts and support for my 
> classification. The Mineral Chemistry End Members, and Isotopic measurements 
> Oxygen Isotopes are all within Lunar Mineralogy, and Lunar Isotopic fields. 
> Geochemists, and Scientists have studied this Lunar Specimen , and they are 
> in agreement with my classification. If you have other questions please feel 
> free to contact me. Mitch Minor office (815)740-3834 cell(815)545-5803
>
> __
> http://www.meteoritecentral.com
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

_

__
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

[meteorite-list] SALE ESTHERVILLE METEORITE Mesosiderite 31.0gm

[Brian Cox]

   Hello List Members,

   I hope everyone is having a Great week!

   I have a very nice Estherville 31.0 grams Mesosiderite with beautiful 
metal and a matrix of olivine

   that ends this Sunday November 9, at 19:20:09 pm Pacific time.
   It comes with a great looking membrane clear display box and I'm paying 
for

   the shipping by USPS Priority mail anywhere in the US.
   Normal shipping rates apply outside the US.

   
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=280282141040&ssPageName=STRK:MESE:IT&ih=018


   Thanks for looking.

   Brian Cox

   searchingforfun on ebay

   IMCA # 6387

__
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Re: [meteorite-list] Unusual new lunar or hokum?

[Mr EMan]

Mitch, Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. We would like to SEE 
the proof and I would like the following conflicts resolved to win me over. You 
could foreclose all the nay saying and skeptics by resolving the following 
conflicts:

Six+ conflicts in your claims for the Illinois Lunarite are incompatible within 
your own claims and suggest this is other than a lunar meteorite.

1. One matching plot out of 8+ graphs isn't proof--in fact it is disqualifying. 
I can find something somewhere to plot any two substances together with some 
shared feature.  Minus 1

2. "Lunar Isotopic Oxygen Plot "Match""...  Those would be the same as 
terrestrial plots owing to the Earth-Moon common origin.  This match proves 
only that they originated in the local neighborhood.  This doesn't rule out a 
slag pile in South Chicago and it doesn't rule in the moon. 0/ Neutral

3. The main mass size you've claimed couldn't physically exist for a meteorite 
found on earth.  There is an envelope of maximum object size that can be 
launched from the lunar surface via impact that 1) does not melt due to 
acceleration energies YET 2) have enough mass to survive transit of the 
atmosphere.  That envelope accommodates a original mass of a few kilograms not 
a few tons.  Bonus points lost in that your petrological content doesn't 
include shock induced masklenite/glass. Minus 2 and also disqualifying.

4. It is 99.9% improbable to have a valid lunar specimen which is an all 
inclusive, collective petrology, commingled conglomeration, that contains 
virtually every single petrological type found in lunar meteorites known to 
science.  The glaring exception would be a melt pile assembled by aliens in a 
anti-gravity experiment gone arye.  Minus 1-- Practically impossible so 
practically disqualifying.

5 Two legitimate, proven, qualified, do-it-for-a-living-professional experts on 
meteorites (who are also list members) have passed judgment on your material, 
while you have yet to reveal the researchers who did your analysis along with 
their complete reports.
Minus 2  Pretty much disqualifying in my book.

6. Why haven't you dated the material if you've done all the other extensive 
testing?  Why leave out the one test that would prove a date more inline with 
lunar ages? Minus 1

7. Why can't you get anyone to come forward to defend your claim and sponsor it 
before the NonCom Committee. Frankly, every planetary scientist in the world 
would want a chance at that rock given its exotic preliminary classification.  
The only thing you didn't claim was antraxite content with fossil life 
forms--Otherwise, you'd have the perfect and complete meteorite-plus collection 
in a single specimen. Minus 1

If you are keeping score: Plus 0, Neutral 1, Minus 8. This cannot be a lunar 
meteorie nor any planetary meteorite--it is not a chondrite so unless you can 
underpin your claims with something such as an absolute formation age from 
100,000 to 300,000 to 4.3± billion years, it can't be a meteorite-- period.

Skeptically but honestly submited
Elton

> On 11/3/08 5:17 PM, "Patricia Harris" aka Mitch Minor
 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Back in 2005 Ted Bunch confirmed this specimen as a
100% meteorite, and he wasmsuppose to classify this meteorite, and publish it. 
I waited 9 months for classification but Ted never completed it. Since then 
many tests have been completed to support my classification for this Lunar 
meteorite specimen. All tests completed offer facts and support for my 
classification. The Mineral Chemistry End Members, and Isotopic measurements 
Oxygen Isotopes are all within Lunar Mineralogy, and Lunar Isotopic fields. 
Geochemists, and Scientists have studied this Lunar Specimen , and they are in 
agreement with my classification. If you have other questions please feel free 
to contact me. Mitch Minor office (815)740-3834 cell(815)545-5803

__
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Re: [meteorite-list] Unusual new lunar or hokum?

[Jeff Kuyken]

This is NOT true at all!!!

I was approached by Mitch Minor quite some time ago to purchase some of his 
pieces. I knew they were clearly not meteorites but he insisted Ted had said 
they were. On chatting to Ted he said this was not the case at all and that 
all the specimens he'd been sent were terrestrial which Mitch was told and 
then told again after contacting me.


This guys indiscretions go back years and is well known to us. Remember the 
"planetary" specimens on ebay for hundreds of thousands? Same person! Have a 
look at Ken's page here:


http://meteorite-identification.com/ebay/minor.html
http://meteorite-identification.com/ebay/m_minor.html

Ohh... and here's a page of Randy Korotev's that mentions Mitch's pieces:

http://meteorites.wustl.edu/meteorwrongs/m239.htm

Cheers,

Jeff Kuyken
Meteorites Australia
www.meteorites.com.au
Director - I.M.C.A. Inc.
www.imca.cc




- Original Message - 
From: "Patricia Harris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "Ted Bunch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 
Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 11:17 AM
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Unusual new lunar or hokum?


Back in 2005 Ted Bunch confirmed this specimen as a 100% meteorite, and he 
was suppose to classify this meteorite, and publish it. I waited 9 months 
for classification but Ted never completed it. Since then many tests have 
been completed to support my classification for this Lunar meteorite 
specimen. All tests completed offer facts and support for my 
classification. The Mineral Chemistry End Members, and Isotopic 
measurements Oxygen Isotopes are all within Lunar Mineralogy, and Lunar 
Isotopic fields. Geochemists, and Scientists have studied this Lunar 
Specimen , and they are in agreement with my classification. If you have 
other questions please feel free to contact me. Mitch Minor office 
(815)740-3834 cell(815)545-5803



--- On Mon, 11/3/08, Ted Bunch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


From: Ted Bunch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Unusual new lunar or hokum?
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
Date: Monday, November 3, 2008, 4:06 PM
Hi Mike - I concur, the whole picture looks strange to me. A
5 ton lunar
meteorite in  one piece? Where were the O2 analyses done?
There are only a
few trustworthy labs that can do O2 analyses. In any case,
I don't think the
reported O2 data are that discriminating between lunar and
terrestrial.
Some of the mineralogy looks OK, some does not. The plotted
major oxide
compositional data look impressive for lunar origin, but
there are
terrestrial mafic compositions that are just as
lunar-looking. The hand
sample surface is very irregular and looks more like a
weathered terrestrial
surface than fusion crust.

Looks like a duck, walks like a duck, but it doesn't
quack like a duck.  My
advice is to wait until it has been officially classified
and/or Randy
Korotev has looked it over before buying a piece. I also
suggest that the
Starchaser group do FeO/MnO ratios on olivine and pyroxene.
These ratios are
discriminating and can save everyone a lot of trouble. My
guess is that this
"lunar" is a glacial erratic from Canada.

Buyer beware,

Ted Bunch




On 11/3/08 7:06 AM, "Michael Gilmer"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Hi Group!
>
> I ran across this one on eBay today :
>
>
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=350119620351
>
> Something about it doesn't ring true.
>
> There is a lot of quasi-scientific mumbo jumbo in the
listing.
>
> Is this for real or some highly-misinformed
individual?
>
> Regards,
>
> MikeG
>
>
>
.
> Michael Gilmer (Louisiana, USA)
> Member of the Meteoritical Society.
> Member of the Bayou Region Stargazers Network.
> Websites - http://www.galactic-stone.com and
http://www.glassthrower.com
> MySpace -
http://www.myspace.com/fine_meteorites_4_sale
>
..
>
>
>
>
> __
> http://www.meteoritecentral.com
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
>
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list


__
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list





__
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list




__
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite Face

[STARSANDSCOPES]

Whoops!  But don't you think it looks like  the Scream???

Thanks to all for setting me straight.

Tom

In  a message dated 11/3/2008 6:38:44 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  writes:




yes, but it's munch---not van gogh.  




Depth of Field Management
1501 Broadway  Suite  1304
New York, New York   10036
212.302.9200


OBAMA!











On Nov 3, 2008, at 8:29 PM,  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


Looks like Van Gogh, the   SCREAM


Tom


In a message dated 11/3/2008 5:49:06 P.M.  Mountain  Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi  All,


My new  meteorite face reminds me of an alien face from a  tv program or 
film many  years back. Anyone else seen this or remember  something 
similar? I just  can't recall where I've seen it and yet it  seems so 
familiar...it's been  bugging me ever since I saw  it.


see   here


http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o43/LaburnumStudio/campos/campoface2.jpg


Graham   Ensor   UK




__
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list   mailing   list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list


**Plan your next getaway with AOL Travel.  Check  out Today's Hot 
5 Travel Deals!  
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/10075x1212416248x1200771803/aol?redir=http:
//travel.aol.com/discount-travel?ncid=emlcntustrav0001)
__
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list  mailing  list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list


=   

**Plan your next getaway with AOL Travel.  Check out Today's Hot 
5 Travel Deals! 
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/10075x1212416248x1200771803/aol?redir=http://travel.aol.com/discount-travel?ncid=emlcntustrav0001)
__
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Re: [meteorite-list] Unusual new lunar or hokum?

[Greg Catterton]

If you are mitch minor, then you know very well that this IS NOT lunar material.
I forwarded you test results from the material you sent me, which proved to be 
FAKE lunar material.
I also contact the testing placves you provided that also basicly said you were 
full of it and would not accept what they had to say.
One even went as far as to say the testing inoformation you provided was 
doctored and not in the original form it was when they returned it to you.
I trust my testing source 100% and your material IS FAKE.
you sir are a con artist at worst, or at best who can not accept the truth.
I will call you out here and publicly on this. 
You sent me 5 grams of "lunar" material that is not real.
You are a liar and a fraud.

--- On Mon, 11/3/08, Patricia Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> From: Patricia Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Unusual new lunar or hokum?
> To: "Ted Bunch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> Date: Monday, November 3, 2008, 7:17 PM
> Back in 2005 Ted Bunch confirmed this specimen as a 100%
> meteorite, and he was suppose to classify this meteorite,
> and publish it. I waited 9 months for classification but Ted
> never completed it. Since then many tests have been
> completed to support my classification for this Lunar
> meteorite specimen. All tests completed offer facts and
> support for my classification. The Mineral Chemistry End
> Members, and Isotopic measurements Oxygen Isotopes are all
> within Lunar Mineralogy, and Lunar Isotopic fields.
> Geochemists, and Scientists have studied this Lunar Specimen
> , and they are in agreement with my classification. If you
> have other questions please feel free to contact me. Mitch
> Minor office (815)740-3834 cell(815)545-5803 
> 
> 
> --- On Mon, 11/3/08, Ted Bunch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> 
> > From: Ted Bunch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Unusual new lunar or
> hokum?
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED],
> meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> > Date: Monday, November 3, 2008, 4:06 PM
> > Hi Mike - I concur, the whole picture looks strange to
> me. A
> > 5 ton lunar
> > meteorite in  one piece? Where were the O2 analyses
> done?
> > There are only a
> > few trustworthy labs that can do O2 analyses. In any
> case,
> > I don't think the
> > reported O2 data are that discriminating between lunar
> and
> > terrestrial.
> > Some of the mineralogy looks OK, some does not. The
> plotted
> > major oxide
> > compositional data look impressive for lunar origin,
> but
> > there are
> > terrestrial mafic compositions that are just as
> > lunar-looking. The hand
> > sample surface is very irregular and looks more like a
> > weathered terrestrial
> > surface than fusion crust.
> > 
> > Looks like a duck, walks like a duck, but it
> doesn't
> > quack like a duck.  My
> > advice is to wait until it has been officially
> classified
> > and/or Randy
> > Korotev has looked it over before buying a piece. I
> also
> > suggest that the
> > Starchaser group do FeO/MnO ratios on olivine and
> pyroxene.
> > These ratios are
> > discriminating and can save everyone a lot of trouble.
> My
> > guess is that this
> > "lunar" is a glacial erratic from Canada.
> > 
> > Buyer beware,
> > 
> > Ted Bunch
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On 11/3/08 7:06 AM, "Michael Gilmer"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 
> > > Hi Group!
> > > 
> > > I ran across this one on eBay today :
> > > 
> > >
> >
> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=350119620351
> > > 
> > > Something about it doesn't ring true.
> > > 
> > > There is a lot of quasi-scientific mumbo jumbo in
> the
> > listing.
> > > 
> > > Is this for real or some highly-misinformed
> > individual?
> > > 
> > > Regards,
> > > 
> > > MikeG
> > > 
> > > 
> > >
> >
> .
> > > Michael Gilmer (Louisiana, USA)
> > > Member of the Meteoritical Society.
> > > Member of the Bayou Region Stargazers Network.
> > > Websites - http://www.galactic-stone.com and
> > http://www.glassthrower.com
> > > MySpace -
> > http://www.myspace.com/fine_meteorites_4_sale
> > >
> >
> ..
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > >   
> > > __
> > > http://www.meteoritecentral.com
> > > Meteorite-list mailing list
> > > Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> > >
> >
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
> > 
> > 
> > __
> > http://www.meteoritecentral.com
> > Meteorite-list mailing list
> > Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> >
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
> 
> 
>   
> 
> __
> http://www.meteoritecentral.com
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list


  

__
http://www.m

Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite Face

[STARSANDSCOPES]

Looks like Van Gogh, the  SCREAM

Tom

In a message dated 11/3/2008 5:49:06 P.M. Mountain  Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi All,

My new  meteorite face reminds me of an alien face from a tv program or 
film many  years back. Anyone else seen this or remember something 
similar? I just  can't recall where I've seen it and yet it seems so 
familiar...it's been  bugging me ever since I saw it.

see  here

http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o43/LaburnumStudio/campos/campoface2.jpg

Graham  Ensor  UK


__
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list  mailing  list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list   

**Plan your next getaway with AOL Travel.  Check out Today's Hot 
5 Travel Deals! 
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/10075x1212416248x1200771803/aol?redir=http://travel.aol.com/discount-travel?ncid=emlcntustrav0001)
__
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Re: [meteorite-list] Unusual new lunar or hokum?

[Ted Bunch]

Bull shit! My opinion at that time is consistent with what I stated today.
See the following e-mail to Minor dated 1/23/07.

Find another way to con money!
Ted


On 11/3/08 5:17 PM, "Patricia Harris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Back in 2005 Ted Bunch confirmed this specimen as a 100% meteorite, and he was
> suppose to classify this meteorite, and publish it. I waited 9 months for
> classification but Ted never completed it. Since then many tests have been
> completed to support my classification for this Lunar meteorite specimen. All
> tests completed offer facts and support for my classification. The Mineral
> Chemistry End Members, and Isotopic measurements Oxygen Isotopes are all
> within Lunar Mineralogy, and Lunar Isotopic fields. Geochemists, and
> Scientists have studied this Lunar Specimen , and they are in agreement with
> my classification. If you have other questions please feel free to contact me.
> Mitch Minor office (815)740-3834 cell(815)545-5803
> 
> 
> --- On Mon, 11/3/08, Ted Bunch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
>> From: Ted Bunch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Unusual new lunar or hokum?
>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
>> Date: Monday, November 3, 2008, 4:06 PM
>> Hi Mike - I concur, the whole picture looks strange to me. A
>> 5 ton lunar
>> meteorite in  one piece? Where were the O2 analyses done?
>> There are only a
>> few trustworthy labs that can do O2 analyses. In any case,
>> I don't think the
>> reported O2 data are that discriminating between lunar and
>> terrestrial.
>> Some of the mineralogy looks OK, some does not. The plotted
>> major oxide
>> compositional data look impressive for lunar origin, but
>> there are
>> terrestrial mafic compositions that are just as
>> lunar-looking. The hand
>> sample surface is very irregular and looks more like a
>> weathered terrestrial
>> surface than fusion crust.
>> 
>> Looks like a duck, walks like a duck, but it doesn't
>> quack like a duck.  My
>> advice is to wait until it has been officially classified
>> and/or Randy
>> Korotev has looked it over before buying a piece. I also
>> suggest that the
>> Starchaser group do FeO/MnO ratios on olivine and pyroxene.
>> These ratios are
>> discriminating and can save everyone a lot of trouble. My
>> guess is that this
>> "lunar" is a glacial erratic from Canada.
>> 
>> Buyer beware,
>> 
>> Ted Bunch
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 11/3/08 7:06 AM, "Michael Gilmer"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Group!
>>> 
>>> I ran across this one on eBay today :
>>> 
>>> 
>> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=350119620351
>>> 
>>> Something about it doesn't ring true.
>>> 
>>> There is a lot of quasi-scientific mumbo jumbo in the
>> listing.
>>> 
>>> Is this for real or some highly-misinformed
>> individual?
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> 
>>> MikeG
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> .
>>> Michael Gilmer (Louisiana, USA)
>>> Member of the Meteoritical Society.
>>> Member of the Bayou Region Stargazers Network.
>>> Websites - http://www.galactic-stone.com and
>> http://www.glassthrower.com
>>> MySpace -
>> http://www.myspace.com/fine_meteorites_4_sale
>>> 
>> ..
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>   
>>> __
>>> http://www.meteoritecentral.com
>>> Meteorite-list mailing list
>>> Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
>>> 
>> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>> 
>> 
>> __
>> http://www.meteoritecentral.com
>> Meteorite-list mailing list
>> Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
>> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
> 
> 
>   
> 


__
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

[meteorite-list] test..please delete

[ensoramanda]

test
__
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

[meteorite-list] Meteorite Face

[ensoramanda]

Hi All,

My new meteorite face reminds me of an alien face from a tv program or 
film many years back. Anyone else seen this or remember something 
similar? I just can't recall where I've seen it and yet it seems so 
familiar...it's been bugging me ever since I saw it.


see here

http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o43/LaburnumStudio/campos/campoface2.jpg

Graham Ensor UK


__
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

[meteorite-list] looking for sa's with holes

[steve arnold]

Hi list.I will be brief.I am looking for a few sikote-alins with holes.Outside 
of the certain person I am dealing with on this matter,I am looking for a few 
more.Please offlist with pics,sizes,and >

Steve R.Arnold,Chicago!  http://chicagometeorites.net/


  
__
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Re: [meteorite-list] Unusual new lunar or hokum?

[Patricia Harris]

Back in 2005 Ted Bunch confirmed this specimen as a 100% meteorite, and he was 
suppose to classify this meteorite, and publish it. I waited 9 months for 
classification but Ted never completed it. Since then many tests have been 
completed to support my classification for this Lunar meteorite specimen. All 
tests completed offer facts and support for my classification. The Mineral 
Chemistry End Members, and Isotopic measurements Oxygen Isotopes are all within 
Lunar Mineralogy, and Lunar Isotopic fields. Geochemists, and Scientists have 
studied this Lunar Specimen , and they are in agreement with my classification. 
If you have other questions please feel free to contact me. Mitch Minor office 
(815)740-3834 cell(815)545-5803 


--- On Mon, 11/3/08, Ted Bunch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> From: Ted Bunch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Unusual new lunar or hokum?
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> Date: Monday, November 3, 2008, 4:06 PM
> Hi Mike - I concur, the whole picture looks strange to me. A
> 5 ton lunar
> meteorite in  one piece? Where were the O2 analyses done?
> There are only a
> few trustworthy labs that can do O2 analyses. In any case,
> I don't think the
> reported O2 data are that discriminating between lunar and
> terrestrial.
> Some of the mineralogy looks OK, some does not. The plotted
> major oxide
> compositional data look impressive for lunar origin, but
> there are
> terrestrial mafic compositions that are just as
> lunar-looking. The hand
> sample surface is very irregular and looks more like a
> weathered terrestrial
> surface than fusion crust.
> 
> Looks like a duck, walks like a duck, but it doesn't
> quack like a duck.  My
> advice is to wait until it has been officially classified
> and/or Randy
> Korotev has looked it over before buying a piece. I also
> suggest that the
> Starchaser group do FeO/MnO ratios on olivine and pyroxene.
> These ratios are
> discriminating and can save everyone a lot of trouble. My
> guess is that this
> "lunar" is a glacial erratic from Canada.
> 
> Buyer beware,
> 
> Ted Bunch
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 11/3/08 7:06 AM, "Michael Gilmer"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > Hi Group!
> > 
> > I ran across this one on eBay today :
> > 
> >
> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=350119620351
> > 
> > Something about it doesn't ring true.
> > 
> > There is a lot of quasi-scientific mumbo jumbo in the
> listing.
> > 
> > Is this for real or some highly-misinformed
> individual?
> > 
> > Regards,
> > 
> > MikeG
> > 
> > 
> >
> .
> > Michael Gilmer (Louisiana, USA)
> > Member of the Meteoritical Society.
> > Member of the Bayou Region Stargazers Network.
> > Websites - http://www.galactic-stone.com and
> http://www.glassthrower.com
> > MySpace -
> http://www.myspace.com/fine_meteorites_4_sale
> >
> ..
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >   
> > __
> > http://www.meteoritecentral.com
> > Meteorite-list mailing list
> > Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> >
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
> 
> 
> __
> http://www.meteoritecentral.com
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list


  

__
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

[meteorite-list] hobby getting affordable and FUN

[mckinney trammell]

11 years ago when i started this hobby with jerry armstrong ANYTHING cool was  
$100/g to start and pallasites were small and very expensive. now i can get 
pieces of vesta for $5/g and pallasites by the pound under under $1,000 for a 
whole rock! what i smokin' time 2 b in the hobby!


  
__
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Re: [meteorite-list] Impact extinction events accelerate evolution?

[Mr EMan]

Good question Steve, 
I favor the rate remaining the same scenario.  The experiments you suggest have 
effectively been done that enrich the given mutations in white mice and 
bacteria strains. Only most forced mutation experiments kill off a whole lot of 
test subjects and take human lifetimes to enrich mutations into a bloodline but 
usually are designed to develop a flaw vs an advantage. (I think we now have 
strains of cannibal barking cockroaches that can live in high 
methane,low-light-high pressure atmospheres and inside reactor vessels. They 
aren't good for anything but you can't kill'em off.  I believe these may have 
come from attorney/politian donors--but I digress)

As to changing mutation rates and in talking about Cambrian and later 
extinction events, IMO there is no suggestion that there is an increased 
mutation"rate" per se, caused by the extinction event.  Extinction events are 
rooted in multiple causes and only a few of them offer DNA damage potential 
such as an abnormal sustained gamma ray burst over 1000's of generations or 
increased ultraviolet energy reaching habitats.

The mutation "rate" would seem to be constant even when evolution of new 
species is expanding (S. Jay. Gould spoke of punctuated evolution but this 
supports niche exploitation vs accelerated mutation). For a time after the 
extinction event,the criticality/consequence of a particular neutral or 
negative mutation isn't so heavily challenged. With competition reduced to 
nill, more mutations will be passed along that have no consequence for the time 
being. As more species fill the niches the apparent rate of evolution, as 
measured in new species,slows. 

The jump in radiation of species post event--acceleration of evolution into 
vacant eco-niches, is more likely owing to the absense of competition pressures 
from the former niche holders.  This results in an ecosystem with a more 
forgiving, less-consequential challenge for the mutated bloodline. (e.g. having 
ample food and habitat without the pressure of also having to overcome another 
creature's advancing mutations, avoiding predators,etc. Simply, when food is 
ample, most any mouth part will work to scrap it up).

Elton   

--- On Fri, 10/31/08, Steve Dunklee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> From: Steve Dunklee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: [meteorite-list] Impact extinction events accelerate evolution?
> Was it the repeated impact events in the primordial soup
> that caused the chemical changes that sparked the creation
> of life on earth?
>   Current science shows that environmental factors cause
> mutations in DNA. Instead of being detrimental to life and
> genetic diversity. Might the repeated impact extinction
> events ,actually caused an increase in genetic mutations? Or
> do the mutation rates remain the same?
>   Have there been any studies done where the conditions
> after an extinction event have been recreated over several
> generations ,to see if there is an increase in mutations
> over a control group in small mammals?This would probably
> require subjecting a group of mice to cold conditions,with a
> near starvation diet in the dark for several years.and
> comparing the mutation rate to a control group. and also
> having a group exposed to high temperatures, a starvation
> diet and high lighting and low light for comparison of
> genetic mutation rates.
>There may already be such studies out there somewhere.
> If any list member have any links or further information to
> them ,this troll would appreciate it!
> 
> Have a great day
> 
> Steve
__
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

[meteorite-list] 9.2 gram MILLEN, GA $1NR on ebay

[mckinney trammell]

if you need this deep south meteorite, here is a NICE piece, PRICED RIGHT! 
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=290272624837&ssPageName=ADME:L:LCA:US:1123
 


  
__
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Re: [meteorite-list] Help, please

[Jerry Flaherty]

Detective Garrison, please report for duty!
Google's spooky.
- Original Message - 
From: "Darren Garrison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "Michael L Blood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Meteorite List" 
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 5:43 PM
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Help, please



On Mon, 03 Nov 2008 14:28:52 -0800, you wrote:


Hi all,
   I have been receiving multiple emails from one
"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>." These emails consist of offensive
And often racist "political" fear focused propaganda.
   I have written this person asking who they are and
Have gotten no response - the act of a coward in my book.
   I was wondering if anyone on the list recognizes
This email address and knows who it is. If you do, would
You please email me off list. I have had it with this.
   Thanks - and sorry for taking list time, but I THINK
I have seen this email address before.
   Best wishes, Michael



Google is your friend!  A couple of minutes there, and you could have 
found

this:

The e-mail address has one hit-- when you click on the link, it is gone, 
but the

Google summary has this info:

JOHN LENNON AUTOGRAPH POSTER
I DID NOT SEE JOHN SIGN THIS BUT IT LOOKS RIGHT WHEN COMPARED WITH ONES ON 
THE

INTERNET. CALL CARL 520-979-9865. OR EMAIL [EMAIL PROTECTED] ...

That phone number has a few Google hits:

http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&q=520-979-9865&btnG=Search

Which you can plug in here:

http://www.addresses.com/

It is a guy named Carl who lives in Phoenix, or maybe Tuscon.  He calls 
himself

"meteoritemax" according to this page:

http://auctions.findtarget.com/detail_product/270280261924/cemetery_plots/

nd-- there is a "meteoritemax" on Ebay who is named Carl (Carl 
Esparza)


http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=280282104170
__
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list 


__
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Re: [meteorite-list] got what I needed - thanks

[Michael L Blood]

Thanks to all those who contacted me,
I phoned the guy and believe I will no longer
Be receiving his propaganda posts.
Thanks for the help.
Have a good and SANE voting day.
Best wishes, Michael

on 11/3/08 2:28 PM, Michael L Blood at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> Hi all,
> I have been receiving multiple emails from one
> "<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>." These emails consist of offensive
> And often racist "political" fear focused propaganda.
> I have written this person asking who they are and
> Have gotten no response - the act of a coward in my book.
> I was wondering if anyone on the list recognizes
> This email address and knows who it is. If you do, would
> You please email me off list. I have had it with this.
> Thanks - and sorry for taking list time, but I THINK
> I have seen this email address before.
> Best wishes, Michael
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> http://www.meteoritecentral.com
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Save huge $ on gas mileage: http://go4best.water4gas.hop.clickbank.net/

Info on Govnt. Spending (BEFORE current "Bail Out"):
http://www.michaelbloodmeteorites.com/GvntSpending.htm

Totally Green by Twenty Eighteen







__
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA

[Rob McCafferty]

I think it's worth pointing out that this object would not pose a collision 
risk to anything in space. It would orbit in the vicinity of the ISS while it's 
altitude slowly decayed. Remember of course that the ISS needs its orbit 
boosing periodically to prevent it from suffering the same fate.
There was no environmental impact from Skylab, Mir or, tragically, Columbia so 
I don't think a small module is likely to cause too many problems. NASA are an 
easy target but I think they do a great job considering the political 
constraints they have to work under.
(I suppose I would say that. As a UK citizen, I'm not footing the bill)

Rob McCafferty


--- On Tue, 11/4/08, Darren Garrison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> From: Darren Garrison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA
> To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> Date: Tuesday, November 4, 2008, 7:06 AM
> On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 10:41:27 -0800 (PST), you wrote:
> 
> >Ammonia is highly toxic to marine life!
> 
> Yep, ammonia isn't good for fish.  Which is why they
> are constantly dumping it
> out of their bodies-- into the water.  If some of the
> ammonia happened to make
> it to the surface of the ocean, for a few minutes a small
> area would have a
> slightly higher concentration, which would quickly diffuse
> into the general
> fish-pee background.
> 
> (Hint-- the ocean is kind of a big place).
> __
> http://www.meteoritecentral.com
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list


  
__
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Re: [meteorite-list] Help, please

[Darren Garrison]

On Mon, 03 Nov 2008 14:28:52 -0800, you wrote:

>Hi all,
>I have been receiving multiple emails from one
>"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>." These emails consist of offensive
>And often racist "political" fear focused propaganda.
>I have written this person asking who they are and
>Have gotten no response - the act of a coward in my book.
>I was wondering if anyone on the list recognizes
>This email address and knows who it is. If you do, would
>You please email me off list. I have had it with this.
>Thanks - and sorry for taking list time, but I THINK
>I have seen this email address before.
>Best wishes, Michael


Google is your friend!  A couple of minutes there, and you could have found
this:

The e-mail address has one hit-- when you click on the link, it is gone, but the
Google summary has this info:

JOHN LENNON AUTOGRAPH POSTER
I DID NOT SEE JOHN SIGN THIS BUT IT LOOKS RIGHT WHEN COMPARED WITH ONES ON THE
INTERNET. CALL CARL 520-979-9865. OR EMAIL [EMAIL PROTECTED] ...

That phone number has a few Google hits:

http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&q=520-979-9865&btnG=Search

Which you can plug in here:

http://www.addresses.com/

It is a guy named Carl who lives in Phoenix, or maybe Tuscon.  He calls himself
"meteoritemax" according to this page:

http://auctions.findtarget.com/detail_product/270280261924/cemetery_plots/

nd-- there is a "meteoritemax" on Ebay who is named Carl (Carl Esparza)

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=280282104170
__
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Re: [meteorite-list] Help, please

[Michael L Blood]

Hi all,
I have been receiving multiple emails from one
"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>." These emails consist of offensive
And often racist "political" fear focused propaganda.
I have written this person asking who they are and
Have gotten no response - the act of a coward in my book.
I was wondering if anyone on the list recognizes
This email address and knows who it is. If you do, would
You please email me off list. I have had it with this.
Thanks - and sorry for taking list time, but I THINK
I have seen this email address before.
Best wishes, Michael







__
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA

[mexicodoug]

No problem Greg C.  Ironically, I just posted based on the posts 
(press!) your reply got on the list, and of course qualified it by 
calling it "possible" so as to report rather than inject my opinion.  
Had not yet seen your recent clarification in the flurry of responses.


NASA has done some shameful things, but if one points one specific out 
in a judgemental way, we should be careful to be specific and check our 
own sources and have a defensible argument.  Thankfully this was not 
one of NASA's blunders.  In addition, if it is ISS related, NASA is not 
alone, but rather part of an international team of accomplices and 
taxpayers ;)


After being on the list longer, it seems friendly advice not to shame 
anyone, including NASA, unless you're enjoying a heated exchange, the 
list never fails, in which case it is nice to have reasonable facts to 
back up claims, rather than just tough talk (not referring to you at 
all with this).  And the longer you are here the harder it will be for 
anyone to peel off your own heat-shield tiles :)


Another ironic thing about the list, is ocassionally we lose new 
members who attempt to start their own forum after they participate in 
the heated exchanges and decide they can do a better job elsewhere on 
the www.  They then point to heated exchanges on the list and try to 
draw list members by saying they moderate on their sites and the list 
is a mess.  Some dealers think this draws business away from them, 
others are frustrated with all the places they must go for information. 
 I truly hope you enjoy this list and contribute for our benefit, and 
do not feel that way.  This list is kinda fun in that respect, it is 
peer reviewed by the best of the best - and that is the best it gets 
for amateurs.  Welcome to the list, and please be sure to encourage all 
the meteorite people you know to use this great resource as a first 
stop for their meteorite interests.


Best wishes
Doug

-Original Message-
From: Greg Catterton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
Sent: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 3:28 pm
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA



I will state again, from the reports I read, it was supposed to pose a 
serious
health risk to anyone who would have come into contact with it had 
there been a
land impact... that said, I assumed that the same would be for marine 
life.
I felt that if that was the case, it was very reckless of NASA to 
simply toss it
out to fall to earth. Again, I am new to this and do not understand all 
the

things involved.
All reports I read stated that several pieces would survive re entry 
and some

would be up to 40-50 lbs...
I may not have fully understood the issue, but I do feel some comments 
directed

to me were very insulting.
I have stated before I am newer to this and do not understand 
everything
involved. while several of you have been polite and helpful, I am left 
feeling
that certain ones who responded need to be more considerate of people 
who are

new to this and still learning.
Its not as if I publicly insulted anyone here and for some of the 
comments I

have recieved I feel are totally uncalled for.

I do understand the safety issues involved with returning it to earth, 
and the
costs... none of which was explained in the news reports... that is why 
I felt
NASA was reckless and should be held liable - I was not properly 
informed and

took the reports at face value.






--- On Mon, 11/3/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA
To: Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
Date: Monday, November 3, 2008, 4:11 PM
Hi Chris, Listees,

It isn't a shade of "illegal dumping" at
issue as far as I can tell.

The possibly crass accusations that stated this thread
might consider
that transporting the old tank in a Space Shuttle back to
earth would
present a far greater danger to occupants and American
residents in the
landing path across the USA upon reentry rather than
uncontrolled
incineration it was given.  If you don't believe that,
why don't you
volunteer for a return flight with that oversized ammonia
tank strapped
in next to you in the belly of the Shuttle as the 30 year
old vehicle
starts shaking like hell in a controlled fall your life
depends upon in
reentry.  Even Iron Man might get a cold sweat on that one.

There was no safer way, unless you wanted to build a
booster for it and
blast it off from a mobile launch platform in low earth
orbit into the
Sun :).  Is this a sensible?

Best wishes and great health,
Doug


-Original Message-
From: Chris Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
Sent: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 1:52 pm
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life -
shame on NASA


There is established international law dealing with legal
liability for
damage or injury caused by space debris reaching the
ground.

Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA

[Darren Garrison]

On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 13:28:08 -0800 (PST), you wrote:

>I may not have fully understood the issue, but I do feel some comments 
>directed to me were very insulting.

Oh, they're just in the tank for ammonia.
__
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Re: [meteorite-list] Paneth-meteorite kolloqium 29.-31 October 2008 inRies-crater

[Thomas Kurtz]

Hello Jerry & list,

the lectures of the Paneth-Colloquium were very interesting. But many of them 
were very difficult to understand, due to the complex and many different 
isotopes examinations.
For your interest please download the list of all abstracts and contact the 
autor for further information.

Paneth Colloquium 2008 (http://www.cosmochemistry.org)

With best wishes from Ries-crater,

Thomas Kurtz



 Original-Nachricht 
> Datum: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 21:36:18 -0400
> Von: "Jerry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> An: "Thomas Kurtz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> Betreff: Re: [meteorite-list] Paneth-meteorite kolloqium 29.-31 October 2008 
> inRies-crater

> Sounds like a terrific opportunity Thomas. I wish I could attend. Perhaps
> an 
> article in Meteorite Magazine highlighting some of the lectures might be 
> something that many of us on the List would benefit from.
> Thanks.
> Jerry Flaherty
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Thomas Kurtz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: 
> Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 5:35 PM
> Subject: [meteorite-list] Paneth-meteorite kolloqium 29.-31 October 2008 
> inRies-crater
> 
> 
> Dear Meteorite friends,
> 
> end of October (29.-30.) 2008, there will be a lot of interesting 
> meteorite-lectures in the Ries-crater in Germany.
> (all will be in english)
> 
> When you ever planned to visit the crater, this will be an interesting 
> opportunity to register for the colloqium too.
> 80 participants registered already.
> 
> The Paneth-Kolloquium is a small European meeting that brings together 
> students and researchers from different fields of cosmochemistry, 
> planetology and astrophysics.
> 
> All information about the Paneth-Kolloquium 2008, registration and
> registration fee, abstract submission as well as accommodation is
> available at http://www.kosmochemie.de/
> 
> Deadline for late registration: October 15
> Deadline for abstract submission: September 30
> 
> Everybody from the list, who will register, please let me know, because
> I´m 
> living since 2007 in the Ries-crater and could give you some support.
> 
> With best wishes from Germany,
> 
> Thomas
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Pt! Schon vom neuen GMX MultiMessenger gehört?
> Der kann`s mit allen: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/multimessenger
> __
> http://www.meteoritecentral.com
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list 

-- 
Der GMX SmartSurfer hilft bis zu 70% Ihrer Onlinekosten zu sparen! 
Ideal für Modem und ISDN: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/smartsurfer
__
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA

[Michael Farmer]

Can we take this to a NASA or SPACE JUNK list. This has nothing to do with 
meteorites, though interesting, has run its coarse and filled my inbox. 
Michael Farmer


--- On Mon, 11/3/08, Greg Catterton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> From: Greg Catterton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA
> To: "Del Waterbury" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> Date: Monday, November 3, 2008, 12:21 PM
> why could they not have returned it to earth on a shuttle
> that was going to be returning to earth anyway?
> No extra cost involved there.
> 
> --- On Mon, 11/3/08, Del Waterbury
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > From: Del Waterbury <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life
> - shame on NASA
> > To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Date: Monday, November 3, 2008, 2:14 PM
> > I don't think the taxpayers would be to happy to
> hear
> > NASA spent millions of dollars to remove a piece of
> space
> > junk. Letting it enter back into the atmoshphere is
> the safe
> > and cheapest way to go. Of course we could just let it
> stay
> > up there and add to the many pieces of space junk
> already
> > floating around putting astronauts lives in danger.
> > 
> > Del
> > 
> > 
> > --- On Mon, 11/3/08, Greg Catterton
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 
> > > From: Greg Catterton
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine
> life
> > - shame on NASA
> > > To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> > > Date: Monday, November 3, 2008, 11:06 AM
> > > If that is the case, why was such a big deal made
> > about not
> > > going anywhere near the debris if it had impacted
> on
> > land
> > > becouse of toxic hazards?
> > > 
> > > I agree about the scuttled destroyer, but at the
> same
> > time,
> > > I dont think that is right to do also. 
> > > 
> > > Perhaps the toxic nature that has been reported
> has
> > mislead
> > > me to think that it was more of a big deal then
> it is,
> > but
> > > it is troubling to think that this was the best
> thing
> > they
> > > could come up with.
> > > Surely it could have been returned to earth on a
> > shuttle
> > > and disposed of properly.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- On Mon, 11/3/08, Chris Peterson
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > From: Chris Peterson
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk -
> marine
> > life
> > > - shame on NASA
> > > > To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> > > > Date: Monday, November 3, 2008, 1:57 PM
> > > > Hi Greg-
> > > > 
> > > > It is inaccurate to say that this object
> > > "splashed
> > > > down". In fact, much of 
> > > > it burned away during reentry, leaving much
> > smaller
> > > debris.
> > > > It would seem 
> > > > extremely unlikely that any ammonia was left
> by
> > the
> > > time
> > > > pieces hit the 
> > > > water. So there was only a bit of scrap
> metal,
> > > probably
> > > > nothing of 
> > > > significant toxicity. The impact of this
> debris
> > on the
> > > > ocean ecology is 
> > > > likely to be near zero.
> > > > 
> > > > Returning junk from low earth orbit is not
> > currently
> > > > practical in most 
> > > > cases. The only option is to allow it to
> reenter
> > and
> > > > (mostly) burn up. I 
> > > > suspect that the sum total of all the debris
> from
> > > space
> > > > that has reached the 
> > > > ground doesn't add up to one scuttled
> > destroyer
> > > (with
> > > > far more toxics in the 
> > > > latter case as well). And ships are scuttled
> all
> > the
> > > time,
> > > > along with 
> > > > thousands every year that are simply lost at
> sea.
> > > > 
> > > > Chris
> > > > 
> > > > *
> > > > Chris L Peterson
> > > > Cloudbait Observatory
> > > > http://www.cloudbait.com
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > - Original Message - 
> > > > From: "Greg Catterton"
> > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > To:
> 
> > > > Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 11:41 AM
> > > > Subject: [meteorite-list] Space junk -
> marine
> > life -
> > > shame
> > > > on NASA
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > > ""The junk was a tank full of
> > ammonia
> > > > coolant on the international space 
> > > > > station that was no longer needed.
> Astronaut
> > > Clayton
> > > > Anderson threw it 
> > > > > overboard during a spacewalk in July
> 2007.
> > > > >
> > > > > Space station program manager Mike
> > Suffredini
> > > said
> > > > Monday that the debris 
> > > > > splashed down somewhere between
> Australia
> > and New
> > > > Zealand Sunday night""
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Am I alone in the idea that Nasa should
> be
> > held
> > > > criminaly liable for the 
> > > > > polution of our waters?
> > > > > If an ordinary person was to dump toxic
> > material
> > > into
> > > > the ocean, surely we 
> > > > > would be in alot of trouble... just
> becouse
> > they
> > > are
> > > > Nasa does no

Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA

[Greg Catterton]

I will state again, from the reports I read, it was supposed to pose a serious 
health risk to anyone who would have come into contact with it had there been a 
land impact... that said, I assumed that the same would be for marine life.
I felt that if that was the case, it was very reckless of NASA to simply toss 
it out to fall to earth. Again, I am new to this and do not understand all the 
things involved. 
All reports I read stated that several pieces would survive re entry and some 
would be up to 40-50 lbs... 
I may not have fully understood the issue, but I do feel some comments directed 
to me were very insulting.
I have stated before I am newer to this and do not understand everything 
involved. while several of you have been polite and helpful, I am left feeling 
that certain ones who responded need to be more considerate of people who are 
new to this and still learning.
Its not as if I publicly insulted anyone here and for some of the comments I 
have recieved I feel are totally uncalled for.

I do understand the safety issues involved with returning it to earth, and the 
costs... none of which was explained in the news reports... that is why I felt 
NASA was reckless and should be held liable - I was not properly informed and 
took the reports at face value.






--- On Mon, 11/3/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA
> To: Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> Date: Monday, November 3, 2008, 4:11 PM
> Hi Chris, Listees,
> 
> It isn't a shade of "illegal dumping" at
> issue as far as I can tell.
> 
> The possibly crass accusations that stated this thread
> might consider 
> that transporting the old tank in a Space Shuttle back to
> earth would 
> present a far greater danger to occupants and American
> residents in the 
> landing path across the USA upon reentry rather than
> uncontrolled 
> incineration it was given.  If you don't believe that,
> why don't you 
> volunteer for a return flight with that oversized ammonia
> tank strapped 
> in next to you in the belly of the Shuttle as the 30 year
> old vehicle 
> starts shaking like hell in a controlled fall your life
> depends upon in 
> reentry.  Even Iron Man might get a cold sweat on that one.
> 
> There was no safer way, unless you wanted to build a
> booster for it and 
> blast it off from a mobile launch platform in low earth
> orbit into the 
> Sun :).  Is this a sensible?
> 
> Best wishes and great health,
> Doug
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Chris Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> Sent: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 1:52 pm
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life -
> shame on NASA
> 
> 
> There is established international law dealing with legal
> liability for 
> damage or injury caused by space debris reaching the
> ground. All space 
> missions (in the U.S., at least) consider the likelihood of
> material 
> surviving reentry. It's a question of statistics, and
> the chance of 
> damage is almost always extremely small. In rare cases
> where something 
> very large is being returned, it is usual for the object to
> be scuttled 
> under controlled circumstances, to ensure reentry over the
> ocean. This 
> refrigeration unit did not require a semi-controlled
> reentry because it 
> was very unlikely enough material would survive to the
> ground to 
> matter, regardless of where the decay occurred. 
>  
> Of course, if an object should land on a school, it's
> easy to say how 
> much cheaper it would have been to return it. But that
> logic only 
> applies if you return everything, and that would be far,
> far more 
> expensive than the cost of a single object hitting a
> school. In this 
> case, given the size of debris remaining (if any), it's
> likely that 
> something hitting a roof would just knock off some shingles
> and slide 
> down. 
>  
> I'll bet your risk is much greater from being hit by
> something falling 
> off an airplane than being hit by something reentering from
> space. And 
> neither risk is high enough to spend much time worrying
> about! 
>  
> Chris 
>  
> * 
> Chris L Peterson 
> Cloudbait Observatory 
> http://www.cloudbait.com 
>  
> - Original Message - From: "Greg
> Catterton" 
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> To: "Chris Peterson"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> Cc:  
> Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 12:30 PM 
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life -
> shame on NASA 
>  
> > 
> > It is the first thing I was aware of, until reading
> more about it. 
> > I know what ifs are really meaningless, however... if
> it had landed 
> on a > school full of kids, Im sure the cost of
> returning to earth 
> would have > been very cheap compared to the loss of
> life. 
> > If it had impacted on a house or other private
> property, would NASA 
> have > been liable? 
> > 
> > The repli

Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA

[mckinney trammell]

so long as it does not leave a sheen, the coast guard, won't care. 


--- On Mon, 11/3/08, Darren Garrison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> From: Darren Garrison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA
> To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> Date: Monday, November 3, 2008, 3:02 PM
> On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 13:34:51 -0600, you wrote:
> 
> >The world is not a gigantic video game of utter
> >destruction. The current "lost" rate is five
> per thousand
> >ships. That amounts to about 300 ships a year. And the
> >term "lost" includes all causes of being
> removed from
> >service.
> 
> On the other hand, there are literally thousands of cargo
> containers lost as sea
> every year-- and some of them probably contain stuff not
> overly fish-friendly.
> 
> http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&q=cargo+containers+lost+at+sea&btnG=Search
> __
> http://www.meteoritecentral.com
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list


  
__
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA

[Chris Peterson]

The possibly crass accusations that stated this thread...


I take it as a simple misunderstanding, perhaps a reasonable one given the 
way things like this are covered in the popular press. The replies were 
reasonable and friendly, as was Greg's response. Nice to see... civility is 
sometimes in short supply around here.


Chris

*
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com


- Original Message - 
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 2:11 PM
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA



Hi Chris, Listees,

It isn't a shade of "illegal dumping" at issue as far as I can tell.

The possibly crass accusations that stated this thread might consider that 
transporting the old tank in a Space Shuttle back to earth would present a 
far greater danger to occupants and American residents in the landing path 
across the USA upon reentry rather than uncontrolled incineration it was 
given.  If you don't believe that, why don't you volunteer for a return 
flight with that oversized ammonia tank strapped in next to you in the 
belly of the Shuttle as the 30 year old vehicle starts shaking like hell 
in a controlled fall your life depends upon in reentry.  Even Iron Man 
might get a cold sweat on that one.


There was no safer way, unless you wanted to build a booster for it and 
blast it off from a mobile launch platform in low earth orbit into the Sun 
:).  Is this a sensible?


Best wishes and great health,
Doug


__
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA

[mexicodoug]

Hi Chris, Listees,

It isn't a shade of "illegal dumping" at issue as far as I can tell.

The possibly crass accusations that stated this thread might consider 
that transporting the old tank in a Space Shuttle back to earth would 
present a far greater danger to occupants and American residents in the 
landing path across the USA upon reentry rather than uncontrolled 
incineration it was given.  If you don't believe that, why don't you 
volunteer for a return flight with that oversized ammonia tank strapped 
in next to you in the belly of the Shuttle as the 30 year old vehicle 
starts shaking like hell in a controlled fall your life depends upon in 
reentry.  Even Iron Man might get a cold sweat on that one.


There was no safer way, unless you wanted to build a booster for it and 
blast it off from a mobile launch platform in low earth orbit into the 
Sun :).  Is this a sensible?


Best wishes and great health,
Doug


-Original Message-
From: Chris Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
Sent: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 1:52 pm
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA


There is established international law dealing with legal liability for 
damage or injury caused by space debris reaching the ground. All space 
missions (in the U.S., at least) consider the likelihood of material 
surviving reentry. It's a question of statistics, and the chance of 
damage is almost always extremely small. In rare cases where something 
very large is being returned, it is usual for the object to be scuttled 
under controlled circumstances, to ensure reentry over the ocean. This 
refrigeration unit did not require a semi-controlled reentry because it 
was very unlikely enough material would survive to the ground to 
matter, regardless of where the decay occurred. 

 
Of course, if an object should land on a school, it's easy to say how 
much cheaper it would have been to return it. But that logic only 
applies if you return everything, and that would be far, far more 
expensive than the cost of a single object hitting a school. In this 
case, given the size of debris remaining (if any), it's likely that 
something hitting a roof would just knock off some shingles and slide 
down. 

 
I'll bet your risk is much greater from being hit by something falling 
off an airplane than being hit by something reentering from space. And 
neither risk is high enough to spend much time worrying about! 

 
Chris 
 
* 
Chris L Peterson 
Cloudbait Observatory 
http://www.cloudbait.com 
 
- Original Message - From: "Greg Catterton" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 

To: "Chris Peterson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
Cc:  
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 12:30 PM 
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA 
 

 
It is the first thing I was aware of, until reading more about it. 
I know what ifs are really meaningless, however... if it had landed 
on a > school full of kids, Im sure the cost of returning to earth 
would have > been very cheap compared to the loss of life. 
If it had impacted on a house or other private property, would NASA 

have > been liable? 

 
The replies about this have been really good and informative, Thanks 

to > all for your input. 

 
Greg 

 
__ 
http://www.meteoritecentral.com 
Meteorite-list mailing list 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list 

__
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA

[John.L.Cabassi]

G'Day Greg and all
I thought I read that the tank was not stable enough to stand a trip back in 
the shuttle and could pose a risk to the shuttle and crew.


Cheers Johnno
- Original Message - 
From: "Greg Catterton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "Del Waterbury" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: 
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 11:21 AM
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA


why could they not have returned it to earth on a shuttle that was going 
to be returning to earth anyway?

No extra cost involved there.

--- On Mon, 11/3/08, Del Waterbury <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


From: Del Waterbury <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA
To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Monday, November 3, 2008, 2:14 PM
I don't think the taxpayers would be to happy to hear
NASA spent millions of dollars to remove a piece of space
junk. Letting it enter back into the atmoshphere is the safe
and cheapest way to go. Of course we could just let it stay
up there and add to the many pieces of space junk already
floating around putting astronauts lives in danger.

Del


--- On Mon, 11/3/08, Greg Catterton
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> From: Greg Catterton
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life
- shame on NASA
> To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> Date: Monday, November 3, 2008, 11:06 AM
> If that is the case, why was such a big deal made
about not
> going anywhere near the debris if it had impacted on
land
> becouse of toxic hazards?
>
> I agree about the scuttled destroyer, but at the same
time,
> I dont think that is right to do also.
>
> Perhaps the toxic nature that has been reported has
mislead
> me to think that it was more of a big deal then it is,
but
> it is troubling to think that this was the best thing
they
> could come up with.
> Surely it could have been returned to earth on a
shuttle
> and disposed of properly.
>
>
>
>
>
> --- On Mon, 11/3/08, Chris Peterson
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > From: Chris Peterson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine
life
> - shame on NASA
> > To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> > Date: Monday, November 3, 2008, 1:57 PM
> > Hi Greg-
> >
> > It is inaccurate to say that this object
> "splashed
> > down". In fact, much of
> > it burned away during reentry, leaving much
smaller
> debris.
> > It would seem
> > extremely unlikely that any ammonia was left by
the
> time
> > pieces hit the
> > water. So there was only a bit of scrap metal,
> probably
> > nothing of
> > significant toxicity. The impact of this debris
on the
> > ocean ecology is
> > likely to be near zero.
> >
> > Returning junk from low earth orbit is not
currently
> > practical in most
> > cases. The only option is to allow it to reenter
and
> > (mostly) burn up. I
> > suspect that the sum total of all the debris from
> space
> > that has reached the
> > ground doesn't add up to one scuttled
destroyer
> (with
> > far more toxics in the
> > latter case as well). And ships are scuttled all
the
> time,
> > along with
> > thousands every year that are simply lost at sea.
> >
> > Chris
> >
> > *
> > Chris L Peterson
> > Cloudbait Observatory
> > http://www.cloudbait.com
> >
> >
> > - Original Message - 
> > From: "Greg Catterton"

> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: 
> > Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 11:41 AM
> > Subject: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine
life -
> shame
> > on NASA
> >
> >
> > > ""The junk was a tank full of
ammonia
> > coolant on the international space
> > > station that was no longer needed. Astronaut
> Clayton
> > Anderson threw it
> > > overboard during a spacewalk in July 2007.
> > >
> > > Space station program manager Mike
Suffredini
> said
> > Monday that the debris
> > > splashed down somewhere between Australia
and New
> > Zealand Sunday night""
> > >
> > >
> > > Am I alone in the idea that Nasa should be
held
> > criminaly liable for the
> > > polution of our waters?
> > > If an ordinary person was to dump toxic
material
> into
> > the ocean, surely we
> > > would be in alot of trouble... just becouse
they
> are
> > Nasa does not make
> > > them above the law. Ammonia is highly toxic
to
> marine
> > life!
> > > It is my opinion that this was an outright
> disrespect
> > to the enviorment
> > > and a potential hazard to the marine life in
the
> area
> > of impact.
> > > I am very upset about this and feel Nasa was
> totally
> > wrong for the actions
> > > they have done.
> > > This could have been handled in a much
better
> fashion,
> > and I for one would
> > > like to see Nasa held accountable for this.
> > > I am really upset about this whole
situtation.
> > > surely if it had fallen on someones propery
NASA
> would
> > be in alot of
> > > trouble...
> > > Shame on you NASA. Shame on you Clayton
Anderson.
> >
> > __
>

Re: [meteorite-list] cleaning Millbillillie ?

[mexicodoug]

Steve#3 wrote:
"[not] Anything with HCL or flourine"

Harlan wrote:
"oxaclic acid work like is does when removing red clay stains form 
quartz crystals?"


Hi Friends,

Just a few thoughts:

Oxalic acid will probably clean some meteoritical residue off any 
quartz crystals you can find in meteorites.

Oxaclic[sic] acid only gives a good vista with Meteorites for Windows.

Flourine[sic], milk of magnesia and monocynical pigeonite eggs [cum 
grano salis] are useful in a pinch in the field for starving meteorite 
hunters trying to eke out a living off the land, so on this I agree 
with Steve#3.*


Are quartz crystals porous in aqueous solutions?  Are stony meteorites?
Are quartz crystals uniform in composition?  Are stony meteorites?
Is silicon dioxide (=glass, quartz, etc.) inert to these reagents?  Are 
stony meteorites?


I agree it would be nice to be an alchemist, but I think this is far 
more profound of a science than these posts would suggest, without an 
academic evaluation of a broad range of chemistry and mineralization 
processes.  I say this because I do not like many "cleaning techniques" 
I've seen used on metorites just to get some skin-deep aesthetics for a 
quick sale.  In fact, some "cleaning" procedures are based on removing 
visually contaminated meteorite material and falsely refinishing the 
surface and representing it as something it is not (losing information 
on flight markings, etc, which has already been suggested).  There are 
many degrees of misrepresentation and negligence by gurus in cleaning 
meteorites for personal use, but then passing them along to clueless 
enthusiastic buyers.  Hopefully this is recognized for what it is, just 
as fake meteorite claims, or clarified with asociated label and 
hopefully a lower price.


Sic transit gloria astra,
but great health anyways
Doug

PS Ponce de Leon is reputed to have washed his meteorites in Boinca 
Fountain off Florida, which restored their youthful appearance.  Other 
cynics believe there is no such thing as a fountain of youth, and we 
should just appreciate all stages of life as equally precious, 
especially when getting older as challenges become more and more 
impressive...


*They are good ingredients for meteorite waffles and not good 
candidates for the next craze poisoning the eBay meteorite quarry.  
Steve#3's example of my 1860 proof dollar coin that was buried and 
impregnated in the outback for 30 years doesn't seem to remind me 
either of stony meteorites or even of a proof coin that has anything 
suggestive of having been struck on proof dies - so here I disagree 
with this off-base analogy.  Way too many apples to oranges comparisons 
here (quartz crystals, etc.).  Not saying that some insights on the 
science with merit wouldn't be very interesting, just, so far none have 
been offered.






-Original Message-
From: Steve Dunklee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Alexander Seidel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 
meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; tett 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Sent: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 11:19 am
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] cleaning Millbillillie ?



Yes. So might msg, tsp, Dmso, and white vinegar. depending on a lot of
conditions. Anything with HCL or flourine should be avoided, as well as 
Sulfuric

acid.

Steve
   P.S.  But Don't clean them! they are like coins!


--- On Sun, 11/2/08, mckinney trammell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:



From: mckinney trammell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] cleaning Millbillillie ?
To: "Alexander Seidel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 

meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com,
[EMAIL PROTECTED], "tett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Date: Sunday, November 2, 2008, 7:14 PM
would oxaclic acid work like is does when removing red clay
stains form quartz crystals?


--- On Sun, 11/2/08, tett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> From: tett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] cleaning Millbillillie ?
> To: "Alexander Seidel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: Sunday, November 2, 2008, 5:10 PM
> I now have a much deeper appreciation for
Millbillillie.
>
> I will not attempt cleaning and will reflect on the
> "subtle" beauty these
> meteorites have.
>
> Many Thanks!
>
> Mike
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Alexander Seidel"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "tett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
> ;
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2008 11:24 AM
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] cleaning Millbillillie ?
>
>
> >> I agree that there is a special
characteristic
> that would be lost if the
> >> red staining were to be removed from a
> Millbillillie individual.
> >> However,
> >> it is also great to have meteorites pristine
with
> no terrestrial
> >> alteration.
> >> The priciest Millbillillies are those that
with
> dark black glassy crusts.
> >
> > No, a meteorite like Millbillillie should be
looked at
> in a much more
> > subtle way!
> >
> > It fell in 1960, and was collected no earlier
than 

Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA

[Darren Garrison]

On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 13:34:51 -0600, you wrote:

>The world is not a gigantic video game of utter
>destruction. The current "lost" rate is five per thousand
>ships. That amounts to about 300 ships a year. And the
>term "lost" includes all causes of being removed from
>service.

On the other hand, there are literally thousands of cargo containers lost as sea
every year-- and some of them probably contain stuff not overly fish-friendly.

http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&q=cargo+containers+lost+at+sea&btnG=Search
__
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA

[Chris Peterson]

There is established international law dealing with legal liability for 
damage or injury caused by space debris reaching the ground. All space 
missions (in the U.S., at least) consider the likelihood of material 
surviving reentry. It's a question of statistics, and the chance of damage 
is almost always extremely small. In rare cases where something very large 
is being returned, it is usual for the object to be scuttled under 
controlled circumstances, to ensure reentry over the ocean. This 
refrigeration unit did not require a semi-controlled reentry because it was 
very unlikely enough material would survive to the ground to matter, 
regardless of where the decay occurred.


Of course, if an object should land on a school, it's easy to say how much 
cheaper it would have been to return it. But that logic only applies if you 
return everything, and that would be far, far more expensive than the cost 
of a single object hitting a school. In this case, given the size of debris 
remaining (if any), it's likely that something hitting a roof would just 
knock off some shingles and slide down.


I'll bet your risk is much greater from being hit by something falling off 
an airplane than being hit by something reentering from space. And neither 
risk is high enough to spend much time worrying about!


Chris

*
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com


- Original Message - 
From: "Greg Catterton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "Chris Peterson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: 
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 12:30 PM
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA




It is the first thing I was aware of, until reading more about it.
I know what ifs are really meaningless, however... if it had landed on a 
school full of kids, Im sure the cost of returning to earth would have 
been very cheap compared to the loss of life.
If it had impacted on a house or other private property, would NASA have 
been liable?


The replies about this have been really good and informative, Thanks to 
all for your input.


Greg


__
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA

[Greg Catterton]

no "hip shot" was intended. I was basing my opinions on reports I have read 
concerning this and as I have said before, I am not as experienced at these 
things as some of you are and the reports I read made it out to be a major 
health risk to people if it was a land impact. 
that said, I figured the health risk to marine life would have been the same.
I am not out to blast NASA or the atronaut, I just did not understand why they 
could not have simply returned it in a shuttle that was returning to earth. 



--- On Mon, 11/3/08, Greg Hupe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> From: Greg Hupe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA
> To: "Chris Peterson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> Date: Monday, November 3, 2008, 2:35 PM
> Hi Chris,
> 
> Thank you for replying in a short and easy way to describe
> the objects size 
> being trackable. I won't begin to pretend to know about
> these things. The 
> initial comment seemed like as hip-shot and I didn't
> think NASA or the 
> astronaut deserved it.
> 
> Best regards,
> Greg
> 
> 
> Greg Hupe
> The Hupe Collection
> NaturesVault (eBay)
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> www.LunarRock.com
> IMCA 3163
> 
> Click here for my current eBay auctions: 
> http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQsassZnaturesvault
> 
> 
> 
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Chris Peterson"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Greg Hupe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: 
> Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 2:23 PM
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life -
> shame on NASA
> 
> 
> > Hi Greg-
> >
> > This thing was, in fact, deliberately discarded with
> the knowledge that it 
> > would reenter. It posed no risk to anything else
> because it was large 
> > enough to track, in a known orbit, and was sure to
> have a short lifetime 
> > in space. It had no potential to produce any
> additional debris.
> >
> > This isn't the first thing they scuttled from the
> ISS.
> >
> > Chris
> >
> > *
> > Chris L Peterson
> > Cloudbait Observatory
> > http://www.cloudbait.com
> >
> >
> > - Original Message - 
> > From: "Greg Hupe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Cc: 
> > Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 12:10 PM
> > Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life
> - shame on NASA
> >
> >
> >> Hello Greg,
> >>
> >> Where do you read that an astronaut, "..threw
> it (ammonia tank) overboard 
> >> (from the International Space Station) during a
> space walk in July 
> >> 2007."? I find it highly unlikely that
> material would be purposely tossed 
> >> into space to potentially be a floating target for
> future spacecraft 
> >> and/or satellites to hit. I do not think NASA has
> the same mindset that 
> >> some cruise ship operators have by throwing their
> bags of trash into the 
> >> ocean.
> >>
> >> My thoughts!
> >> Greg
> >
> > 
> 
> 
> __
> http://www.meteoritecentral.com
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list


  

__
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA

[Mike Bandli]

This would require a new mission plan and millions of dollars in training
exercises and mock-ups. The tank weighs 1400 lbs and it would have to be
brought in the payload bay. A system would have to be designed and installed
to hold the tank. I forget the figure, but there is a cost per pound in
space flight and it is not cheap. When those payload bay doors open it costs
$!! 

Bottom line: it's not feasible. Burn baby burn.

Mike Bandli

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Greg
Catterton
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 11:22 AM
To: Del Waterbury
Cc: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA

why could they not have returned it to earth on a shuttle that was going to
be returning to earth anyway?
No extra cost involved there.

--- On Mon, 11/3/08, Del Waterbury <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> From: Del Waterbury <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA
> To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: Monday, November 3, 2008, 2:14 PM
> I don't think the taxpayers would be to happy to hear
> NASA spent millions of dollars to remove a piece of space
> junk. Letting it enter back into the atmoshphere is the safe
> and cheapest way to go. Of course we could just let it stay
> up there and add to the many pieces of space junk already
> floating around putting astronauts lives in danger.
> 
> Del
> 
> 
> --- On Mon, 11/3/08, Greg Catterton
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > From: Greg Catterton
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life
> - shame on NASA
> > To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> > Date: Monday, November 3, 2008, 11:06 AM
> > If that is the case, why was such a big deal made
> about not
> > going anywhere near the debris if it had impacted on
> land
> > becouse of toxic hazards?
> > 
> > I agree about the scuttled destroyer, but at the same
> time,
> > I dont think that is right to do also. 
> > 
> > Perhaps the toxic nature that has been reported has
> mislead
> > me to think that it was more of a big deal then it is,
> but
> > it is troubling to think that this was the best thing
> they
> > could come up with.
> > Surely it could have been returned to earth on a
> shuttle
> > and disposed of properly.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --- On Mon, 11/3/08, Chris Peterson
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 
> > > From: Chris Peterson
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine
> life
> > - shame on NASA
> > > To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> > > Date: Monday, November 3, 2008, 1:57 PM
> > > Hi Greg-
> > > 
> > > It is inaccurate to say that this object
> > "splashed
> > > down". In fact, much of 
> > > it burned away during reentry, leaving much
> smaller
> > debris.
> > > It would seem 
> > > extremely unlikely that any ammonia was left by
> the
> > time
> > > pieces hit the 
> > > water. So there was only a bit of scrap metal,
> > probably
> > > nothing of 
> > > significant toxicity. The impact of this debris
> on the
> > > ocean ecology is 
> > > likely to be near zero.
> > > 
> > > Returning junk from low earth orbit is not
> currently
> > > practical in most 
> > > cases. The only option is to allow it to reenter
> and
> > > (mostly) burn up. I 
> > > suspect that the sum total of all the debris from
> > space
> > > that has reached the 
> > > ground doesn't add up to one scuttled
> destroyer
> > (with
> > > far more toxics in the 
> > > latter case as well). And ships are scuttled all
> the
> > time,
> > > along with 
> > > thousands every year that are simply lost at sea.
> > > 
> > > Chris
> > > 
> > > *
> > > Chris L Peterson
> > > Cloudbait Observatory
> > > http://www.cloudbait.com
> > > 
> > > 
> > > - Original Message - 
> > > From: "Greg Catterton"
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > To: 
> > > Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 11:41 AM
> > > Subject: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine
> life -
> > shame
> > > on NASA
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > ""The junk was a tank full of
> ammonia
> > > coolant on the international space 
> > > > station that was no longer needed. Astronaut
> > Clayton
> > > Anderson threw it 
> > > > overboard during a spacewalk in July 2007.
> > > >
> > > > Space station program manager Mike
> Suffredini
> > said
> > > Monday that the debris 
> > > > splashed down somewhere between Australia
> and New
> > > Zealand Sunday night""
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Am I alone in the idea that Nasa should be
> held
> > > criminaly liable for the 
> > > > polution of our waters?
> > > > If an ordinary person was to dump toxic
> material
> > into
> > > the ocean, surely we 
> > > > would be in alot of trouble... just becouse
> they
> > are
> > > Nasa does not make 
> > > > them above the law. Ammonia is highly toxic
> to
> > marine
> > > life!
> > > > It is my opinion t

Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA

[Greg Hupe]

Hi Chris,

Thank you for replying in a short and easy way to describe the objects size 
being trackable. I won't begin to pretend to know about these things. The 
initial comment seemed like as hip-shot and I didn't think NASA or the 
astronaut deserved it.


Best regards,
Greg


Greg Hupe
The Hupe Collection
NaturesVault (eBay)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.LunarRock.com
IMCA 3163

Click here for my current eBay auctions: 
http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQsassZnaturesvault




- Original Message - 
From: "Chris Peterson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "Greg Hupe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: 
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 2:23 PM
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA



Hi Greg-

This thing was, in fact, deliberately discarded with the knowledge that it 
would reenter. It posed no risk to anything else because it was large 
enough to track, in a known orbit, and was sure to have a short lifetime 
in space. It had no potential to produce any additional debris.


This isn't the first thing they scuttled from the ISS.

Chris

*
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com


- Original Message - 
From: "Greg Hupe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: 
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 12:10 PM
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA



Hello Greg,

Where do you read that an astronaut, "..threw it (ammonia tank) overboard 
(from the International Space Station) during a space walk in July 
2007."? I find it highly unlikely that material would be purposely tossed 
into space to potentially be a floating target for future spacecraft 
and/or satellites to hit. I do not think NASA has the same mindset that 
some cruise ship operators have by throwing their bags of trash into the 
ocean.


My thoughts!
Greg






__
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA

[Sterling K. Webb]

Hi, Greg, Chris, All,

Ecological impact is likely a true zero. We don't
even know if ANY piece of the tank made it to ground
or not. Odds are against.

But I want to quibble with this:

> ships are scuttled all the time, along with thousands
> every year that are simply lost at sea.

The world is not a gigantic video game of utter
destruction. The current "lost" rate is five per thousand
ships. That amounts to about 300 ships a year. And the
term "lost" includes all causes of being removed from
service.

Most "lost" ships are lost near coasts, on reefs, in
collisions with other ships. They are damaged beyond
the worth of saving and are scraped when they're lifted
off and tugboated to a port. The classic "lost at sea,"
where a ship sets out and vanishes, is unbelievably rare!

Footnote data:
http://www.imo.org/includes/blastDataOnly.asp/data_id%3D5673/8133.pdf

Avast, matey!


Sterling K. Webb
---
- Original Message - 
From: "Chris Peterson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 12:57 PM
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA


Hi Greg-

It is inaccurate to say that this object "splashed down". In fact, much of
it burned away during reentry, leaving much smaller debris. It would seem
extremely unlikely that any ammonia was left by the time pieces hit the
water. So there was only a bit of scrap metal, probably nothing of
significant toxicity. The impact of this debris on the ocean ecology is
likely to be near zero.

Returning junk from low earth orbit is not currently practical in most
cases. The only option is to allow it to reenter and (mostly) burn up. I
suspect that the sum total of all the debris from space that has reached the
ground doesn't add up to one scuttled destroyer (with far more toxics in the
latter case as well). And ships are scuttled all the time, along with
thousands every year that are simply lost at sea.

Chris

*
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com


- Original Message - 
From: "Greg Catterton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 11:41 AM
Subject: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA


> ""The junk was a tank full of ammonia coolant on the international space
> station that was no longer needed. Astronaut Clayton Anderson threw it
> overboard during a spacewalk in July 2007.
>
> Space station program manager Mike Suffredini said Monday that the debris
> splashed down somewhere between Australia and New Zealand Sunday night""
>
>
> Am I alone in the idea that Nasa should be held criminaly liable for the
> polution of our waters?
> If an ordinary person was to dump toxic material into the ocean, surely we
> would be in alot of trouble... just becouse they are Nasa does not make
> them above the law. Ammonia is highly toxic to marine life!
> It is my opinion that this was an outright disrespect to the enviorment
> and a potential hazard to the marine life in the area of impact.
> I am very upset about this and feel Nasa was totally wrong for the actions
> they have done.
> This could have been handled in a much better fashion, and I for one would
> like to see Nasa held accountable for this.
> I am really upset about this whole situtation.
> surely if it had fallen on someones propery NASA would be in alot of
> trouble...
> Shame on you NASA. Shame on you Clayton Anderson.

__
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list 

__
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA

[Mr EMan]

--- On Mon, 11/3/08, Greg Catterton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Am I alone in the idea that Nasa should be held criminaly
> liable for the polution of our waters?...snip

Yeppers!!!---I'd sure hope you are the only one...(((rolling eyes))).  I think 
this post should be nominated for the Emily Lutella Award. No, seriously-- that 
was pretty funny no matter how you intended it. It was good satire on GW, 
green-flavored victimism. 

Statistically, any remaining ammonia was 99.999% consumed in reentry: it has a 
very low boiling point--and there is no evidence anything including ammonia 
made it into the ocean. So it was really closer to air polution but you didn't 
make a case for that. 

The insight argued is too porous to hold a whif of ammonia. Sooo-- so far off 
reality they are fruitless to address in their entirety but using your own 
reasoning --I do know that the ammonia in your urine is a pollutant. If you are 
so morally outraged, I suggest you take any future pisses on your leg rather 
than allowing it into the water system to avoid future criminal acts 
yourself... drink it, bottle it, whatever-- just don't piss in my water nor on 
me again. Oh and under the new Administration your breath is a pollutant as 
well so try to hold it.

Charter member of the "Strained Gnat and Drank Camel Watcher Society"
Elton

__
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA

[Greg Catterton]

It is the first thing I was aware of, until reading more about it.
I know what ifs are really meaningless, however... if it had landed on a school 
full of kids, Im sure the cost of returning to earth would have been very cheap 
compared to the loss of life.
If it had impacted on a house or other private property, would NASA have been 
liable?

The replies about this have been really good and informative, Thanks to all for 
your input.

Greg


--- On Mon, 11/3/08, Chris Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> From: Chris Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA
> To: "Greg Hupe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> Date: Monday, November 3, 2008, 2:23 PM
> Hi Greg-
> 
> This thing was, in fact, deliberately discarded with the
> knowledge that it 
> would reenter. It posed no risk to anything else because it
> was large enough 
> to track, in a known orbit, and was sure to have a short
> lifetime in space. 
> It had no potential to produce any additional debris.
> 
> This isn't the first thing they scuttled from the ISS.
> 
> Chris
> 
> *
> Chris L Peterson
> Cloudbait Observatory
> http://www.cloudbait.com
> 
> 
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Greg Hupe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: 
> Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 12:10 PM
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life -
> shame on NASA
> 
> 
> > Hello Greg,
> >
> > Where do you read that an astronaut, "..threw it
> (ammonia tank) overboard 
> > (from the International Space Station) during a space
> walk in July 2007."? 
> > I find it highly unlikely that material would be
> purposely tossed into 
> > space to potentially be a floating target for future
> spacecraft and/or 
> > satellites to hit. I do not think NASA has the same
> mindset that some 
> > cruise ship operators have by throwing their bags of
> trash into the ocean.
> >
> > My thoughts!
> > Greg
> 
> __
> http://www.meteoritecentral.com
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list


  

__
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA

[Chris Peterson]

There are significant costs involved in returning something like this. Not 
only are the fuel costs real (making orbit changes uses more fuel if you 
have more mass), but there is the time cost of transferring an object to the 
cargo bay and securing it, and the corresponding cost of the lost time that 
could be used for something mission related.


It's one thing to bring back a bag of garbage, and something else altogether 
to return something the size of a satellite. (BTW, objects this size or 
larger do decay and reenter every few days.)


Chris

*
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com


- Original Message - 
From: "Greg Catterton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "Del Waterbury" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: 
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 12:21 PM
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA


why could they not have returned it to earth on a shuttle that was going 
to be returning to earth anyway?

No extra cost involved there.


__
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA

[Chris Peterson]

Hi Greg-

This thing was, in fact, deliberately discarded with the knowledge that it 
would reenter. It posed no risk to anything else because it was large enough 
to track, in a known orbit, and was sure to have a short lifetime in space. 
It had no potential to produce any additional debris.


This isn't the first thing they scuttled from the ISS.

Chris

*
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com


- Original Message - 
From: "Greg Hupe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: 
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 12:10 PM
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA



Hello Greg,

Where do you read that an astronaut, "..threw it (ammonia tank) overboard 
(from the International Space Station) during a space walk in July 2007."? 
I find it highly unlikely that material would be purposely tossed into 
space to potentially be a floating target for future spacecraft and/or 
satellites to hit. I do not think NASA has the same mindset that some 
cruise ship operators have by throwing their bags of trash into the ocean.


My thoughts!
Greg


__
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA

[Greg Catterton]

why could they not have returned it to earth on a shuttle that was going to be 
returning to earth anyway?
No extra cost involved there.

--- On Mon, 11/3/08, Del Waterbury <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> From: Del Waterbury <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA
> To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: Monday, November 3, 2008, 2:14 PM
> I don't think the taxpayers would be to happy to hear
> NASA spent millions of dollars to remove a piece of space
> junk. Letting it enter back into the atmoshphere is the safe
> and cheapest way to go. Of course we could just let it stay
> up there and add to the many pieces of space junk already
> floating around putting astronauts lives in danger.
> 
> Del
> 
> 
> --- On Mon, 11/3/08, Greg Catterton
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > From: Greg Catterton
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life
> - shame on NASA
> > To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> > Date: Monday, November 3, 2008, 11:06 AM
> > If that is the case, why was such a big deal made
> about not
> > going anywhere near the debris if it had impacted on
> land
> > becouse of toxic hazards?
> > 
> > I agree about the scuttled destroyer, but at the same
> time,
> > I dont think that is right to do also. 
> > 
> > Perhaps the toxic nature that has been reported has
> mislead
> > me to think that it was more of a big deal then it is,
> but
> > it is troubling to think that this was the best thing
> they
> > could come up with.
> > Surely it could have been returned to earth on a
> shuttle
> > and disposed of properly.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --- On Mon, 11/3/08, Chris Peterson
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 
> > > From: Chris Peterson
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine
> life
> > - shame on NASA
> > > To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> > > Date: Monday, November 3, 2008, 1:57 PM
> > > Hi Greg-
> > > 
> > > It is inaccurate to say that this object
> > "splashed
> > > down". In fact, much of 
> > > it burned away during reentry, leaving much
> smaller
> > debris.
> > > It would seem 
> > > extremely unlikely that any ammonia was left by
> the
> > time
> > > pieces hit the 
> > > water. So there was only a bit of scrap metal,
> > probably
> > > nothing of 
> > > significant toxicity. The impact of this debris
> on the
> > > ocean ecology is 
> > > likely to be near zero.
> > > 
> > > Returning junk from low earth orbit is not
> currently
> > > practical in most 
> > > cases. The only option is to allow it to reenter
> and
> > > (mostly) burn up. I 
> > > suspect that the sum total of all the debris from
> > space
> > > that has reached the 
> > > ground doesn't add up to one scuttled
> destroyer
> > (with
> > > far more toxics in the 
> > > latter case as well). And ships are scuttled all
> the
> > time,
> > > along with 
> > > thousands every year that are simply lost at sea.
> > > 
> > > Chris
> > > 
> > > *
> > > Chris L Peterson
> > > Cloudbait Observatory
> > > http://www.cloudbait.com
> > > 
> > > 
> > > - Original Message - 
> > > From: "Greg Catterton"
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > To: 
> > > Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 11:41 AM
> > > Subject: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine
> life -
> > shame
> > > on NASA
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > ""The junk was a tank full of
> ammonia
> > > coolant on the international space 
> > > > station that was no longer needed. Astronaut
> > Clayton
> > > Anderson threw it 
> > > > overboard during a spacewalk in July 2007.
> > > >
> > > > Space station program manager Mike
> Suffredini
> > said
> > > Monday that the debris 
> > > > splashed down somewhere between Australia
> and New
> > > Zealand Sunday night""
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Am I alone in the idea that Nasa should be
> held
> > > criminaly liable for the 
> > > > polution of our waters?
> > > > If an ordinary person was to dump toxic
> material
> > into
> > > the ocean, surely we 
> > > > would be in alot of trouble... just becouse
> they
> > are
> > > Nasa does not make 
> > > > them above the law. Ammonia is highly toxic
> to
> > marine
> > > life!
> > > > It is my opinion that this was an outright
> > disrespect
> > > to the enviorment 
> > > > and a potential hazard to the marine life in
> the
> > area
> > > of impact.
> > > > I am very upset about this and feel Nasa was
> > totally
> > > wrong for the actions 
> > > > they have done.
> > > > This could have been handled in a much
> better
> > fashion,
> > > and I for one would 
> > > > like to see Nasa held accountable for this.
> > > > I am really upset about this whole
> situtation.
> > > > surely if it had fallen on someones propery
> NASA
> > would
> > > be in alot of 
> > > > trouble...
> > > > Shame on you NASA. Shame on you Clayton
> Anderson.
> > > 
> > > __
> > > http://www.m

Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA

[Greg Catterton]

take your pick:

http://news.aol.com/article/space-station-trash-plunging-to-earth/234755?icid=200100397x1212231854x1200798183

http://www.space.com/aol/081031-space-station-debris-reentry.html

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2007/07/19/spacejunk_spa.html

just a few links about it.




--- On Mon, 11/3/08, Greg Hupe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> From: Greg Hupe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> Date: Monday, November 3, 2008, 2:10 PM
> Hello Greg,
> 
> Where do you read that an astronaut, "..threw it
> (ammonia tank) overboard 
> (from the International Space Station) during a space walk
> in July 2007."? I 
> find it highly unlikely that material would be purposely
> tossed into space 
> to potentially be a floating target for future spacecraft
> and/or satellites 
> to hit. I do not think NASA has the same mindset that some
> cruise ship 
> operators have by throwing their bags of trash into the
> ocean.
> 
> My thoughts!
> Greg
> 
> 
> Greg Hupe
> The Hupe Collection
> NaturesVault (eBay)
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> www.LunarRock.com
> IMCA 3163
> 
> Click here for my current eBay auctions: 
> http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQsassZnaturesvault
> 
> 
> 
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Greg Catterton"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: 
> Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 1:41 PM
> Subject: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame
> on NASA
> 
> 
> > ""The junk was a tank full of ammonia
> coolant on the international space 
> > station that was no longer needed. Astronaut Clayton
> Anderson threw it 
> > overboard during a spacewalk in July 2007.
> >
> > Space station program manager Mike Suffredini said
> Monday that the debris 
> > splashed down somewhere between Australia and New
> Zealand Sunday night""
> >
> >
> > Am I alone in the idea that Nasa should be held
> criminaly liable for the 
> > polution of our waters?
> > If an ordinary person was to dump toxic material into
> the ocean, surely we 
> > would be in alot of trouble... just becouse they are
> Nasa does not make 
> > them above the law. Ammonia is highly toxic to marine
> life!
> > It is my opinion that this was an outright disrespect
> to the enviorment 
> > and a potential hazard to the marine life in the area
> of impact.
> > I am very upset about this and feel Nasa was totally
> wrong for the actions 
> > they have done.
> > This could have been handled in a much better fashion,
> and I for one would 
> > like to see Nasa held accountable for this.
> > I am really upset about this whole situtation.
> > surely if it had fallen on someones propery NASA would
> be in alot of 
> > trouble...
> > Shame on you NASA. Shame on you Clayton Anderson.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > __
> > http://www.meteoritecentral.com
> > Meteorite-list mailing list
> > Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> >
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
> >


  

__
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA

[Chris Peterson]

They ALWAYS warn people about avoiding space debris on the ground. Most 
likely it's because they have an interest in collecting stuff themselves. 
Or, their lawyers tell them to give the warning. In any case, plenty of 
space debris has been recovered, and there have never been any issues with 
toxicity.


About the only time it's likely to be a concern is when something nuclear 
powered comes down. And that's very rare (once?)


Returning stuff like that is very expensive; there's really not much reason 
to do so.


Chris

*
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com


- Original Message - 
From: "Greg Catterton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 12:06 PM
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA


If that is the case, why was such a big deal made about not going anywhere 
near the debris if it had impacted on land becouse of toxic hazards?


I agree about the scuttled destroyer, but at the same time, I dont think 
that is right to do also.


Perhaps the toxic nature that has been reported has mislead me to think 
that it was more of a big deal then it is, but it is troubling to think 
that this was the best thing they could come up with.
Surely it could have been returned to earth on a shuttle and disposed of 
properly.


__
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA

[Del Waterbury]

I don't think the taxpayers would be to happy to hear NASA spent millions of 
dollars to remove a piece of space junk. Letting it enter back into the 
atmoshphere is the safe and cheapest way to go. Of course we could just let it 
stay up there and add to the many pieces of space junk already floating around 
putting astronauts lives in danger.

Del


--- On Mon, 11/3/08, Greg Catterton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> From: Greg Catterton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA
> To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> Date: Monday, November 3, 2008, 11:06 AM
> If that is the case, why was such a big deal made about not
> going anywhere near the debris if it had impacted on land
> becouse of toxic hazards?
> 
> I agree about the scuttled destroyer, but at the same time,
> I dont think that is right to do also. 
> 
> Perhaps the toxic nature that has been reported has mislead
> me to think that it was more of a big deal then it is, but
> it is troubling to think that this was the best thing they
> could come up with.
> Surely it could have been returned to earth on a shuttle
> and disposed of properly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- On Mon, 11/3/08, Chris Peterson
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > From: Chris Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life
> - shame on NASA
> > To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> > Date: Monday, November 3, 2008, 1:57 PM
> > Hi Greg-
> > 
> > It is inaccurate to say that this object
> "splashed
> > down". In fact, much of 
> > it burned away during reentry, leaving much smaller
> debris.
> > It would seem 
> > extremely unlikely that any ammonia was left by the
> time
> > pieces hit the 
> > water. So there was only a bit of scrap metal,
> probably
> > nothing of 
> > significant toxicity. The impact of this debris on the
> > ocean ecology is 
> > likely to be near zero.
> > 
> > Returning junk from low earth orbit is not currently
> > practical in most 
> > cases. The only option is to allow it to reenter and
> > (mostly) burn up. I 
> > suspect that the sum total of all the debris from
> space
> > that has reached the 
> > ground doesn't add up to one scuttled destroyer
> (with
> > far more toxics in the 
> > latter case as well). And ships are scuttled all the
> time,
> > along with 
> > thousands every year that are simply lost at sea.
> > 
> > Chris
> > 
> > *
> > Chris L Peterson
> > Cloudbait Observatory
> > http://www.cloudbait.com
> > 
> > 
> > - Original Message - 
> > From: "Greg Catterton"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: 
> > Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 11:41 AM
> > Subject: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life -
> shame
> > on NASA
> > 
> > 
> > > ""The junk was a tank full of ammonia
> > coolant on the international space 
> > > station that was no longer needed. Astronaut
> Clayton
> > Anderson threw it 
> > > overboard during a spacewalk in July 2007.
> > >
> > > Space station program manager Mike Suffredini
> said
> > Monday that the debris 
> > > splashed down somewhere between Australia and New
> > Zealand Sunday night""
> > >
> > >
> > > Am I alone in the idea that Nasa should be held
> > criminaly liable for the 
> > > polution of our waters?
> > > If an ordinary person was to dump toxic material
> into
> > the ocean, surely we 
> > > would be in alot of trouble... just becouse they
> are
> > Nasa does not make 
> > > them above the law. Ammonia is highly toxic to
> marine
> > life!
> > > It is my opinion that this was an outright
> disrespect
> > to the enviorment 
> > > and a potential hazard to the marine life in the
> area
> > of impact.
> > > I am very upset about this and feel Nasa was
> totally
> > wrong for the actions 
> > > they have done.
> > > This could have been handled in a much better
> fashion,
> > and I for one would 
> > > like to see Nasa held accountable for this.
> > > I am really upset about this whole situtation.
> > > surely if it had fallen on someones propery NASA
> would
> > be in alot of 
> > > trouble...
> > > Shame on you NASA. Shame on you Clayton Anderson.
> > 
> > __
> > http://www.meteoritecentral.com
> > Meteorite-list mailing list
> > Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> >
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
> 
> 
>   
> 
> __
> http://www.meteoritecentral.com
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list


  
__
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA

[Darren Garrison]

On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 11:06:38 -0800 (PST), you wrote:

>If that is the case, why was such a big deal made about not going anywhere 
>near the debris if it had impacted on land becouse of toxic hazards?
>

1. The hazards imagined for land debris are things like nitrogen tetraoxide and
other potentially toxic propellants.

2. Toxicity is about concentration.  Drink a cup of ammonia, and you are likely
to have a bad (but possibly short) day.  Dump a cup of ammonia in a swimming
pool, and you'll be quite safe jumping in.  (Heck, if you are in a public pool,
a few cups of ammonia have most likely already been dumped in).
__
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA

[Greg Hupe]

Hello Greg,

Where do you read that an astronaut, "..threw it (ammonia tank) overboard 
(from the International Space Station) during a space walk in July 2007."? I 
find it highly unlikely that material would be purposely tossed into space 
to potentially be a floating target for future spacecraft and/or satellites 
to hit. I do not think NASA has the same mindset that some cruise ship 
operators have by throwing their bags of trash into the ocean.


My thoughts!
Greg


Greg Hupe
The Hupe Collection
NaturesVault (eBay)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.LunarRock.com
IMCA 3163

Click here for my current eBay auctions: 
http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQsassZnaturesvault




- Original Message - 
From: "Greg Catterton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 1:41 PM
Subject: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA


""The junk was a tank full of ammonia coolant on the international space 
station that was no longer needed. Astronaut Clayton Anderson threw it 
overboard during a spacewalk in July 2007.


Space station program manager Mike Suffredini said Monday that the debris 
splashed down somewhere between Australia and New Zealand Sunday night""



Am I alone in the idea that Nasa should be held criminaly liable for the 
polution of our waters?
If an ordinary person was to dump toxic material into the ocean, surely we 
would be in alot of trouble... just becouse they are Nasa does not make 
them above the law. Ammonia is highly toxic to marine life!
It is my opinion that this was an outright disrespect to the enviorment 
and a potential hazard to the marine life in the area of impact.
I am very upset about this and feel Nasa was totally wrong for the actions 
they have done.
This could have been handled in a much better fashion, and I for one would 
like to see Nasa held accountable for this.

I am really upset about this whole situtation.
surely if it had fallen on someones propery NASA would be in alot of 
trouble...

Shame on you NASA. Shame on you Clayton Anderson.










__
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list




__
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA

[Dr. Svend Buhl]

Greg, my full respect for your cares about the environment. But I doubt that 
any ammonia reached the lower atmosphere.


Besides, if there is one gouvernment outfit that has had a major positive 
impact on environmental protection in the past then its NASA.


Svend

www.meteorite-recon.com


- Original Message - 
From: "Greg Catterton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 7:41 PM
Subject: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA


""The junk was a tank full of ammonia coolant on the international space 
station that was no longer needed. Astronaut Clayton Anderson threw it 
overboard during a spacewalk in July 2007.


Space station program manager Mike Suffredini said Monday that the debris 
splashed down somewhere between Australia and New Zealand Sunday night""



Am I alone in the idea that Nasa should be held criminaly liable for the 
polution of our waters?
If an ordinary person was to dump toxic material into the ocean, surely we 
would be in alot of trouble... just becouse they are Nasa does not make 
them above the law. Ammonia is highly toxic to marine life!
It is my opinion that this was an outright disrespect to the enviorment 
and a potential hazard to the marine life in the area of impact.
I am very upset about this and feel Nasa was totally wrong for the actions 
they have done.
This could have been handled in a much better fashion, and I for one would 
like to see Nasa held accountable for this.

I am really upset about this whole situtation.
surely if it had fallen on someones propery NASA would be in alot of 
trouble...

Shame on you NASA. Shame on you Clayton Anderson.










__
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list 


__
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA

[Darren Garrison]

On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 10:41:27 -0800 (PST), you wrote:

>Ammonia is highly toxic to marine life!

Yep, ammonia isn't good for fish.  Which is why they are constantly dumping it
out of their bodies-- into the water.  If some of the ammonia happened to make
it to the surface of the ocean, for a few minutes a small area would have a
slightly higher concentration, which would quickly diffuse into the general
fish-pee background.

(Hint-- the ocean is kind of a big place).
__
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA

[Greg Catterton]

If that is the case, why was such a big deal made about not going anywhere near 
the debris if it had impacted on land becouse of toxic hazards?

I agree about the scuttled destroyer, but at the same time, I dont think that 
is right to do also. 

Perhaps the toxic nature that has been reported has mislead me to think that it 
was more of a big deal then it is, but it is troubling to think that this was 
the best thing they could come up with.
Surely it could have been returned to earth on a shuttle and disposed of 
properly.





--- On Mon, 11/3/08, Chris Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> From: Chris Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA
> To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> Date: Monday, November 3, 2008, 1:57 PM
> Hi Greg-
> 
> It is inaccurate to say that this object "splashed
> down". In fact, much of 
> it burned away during reentry, leaving much smaller debris.
> It would seem 
> extremely unlikely that any ammonia was left by the time
> pieces hit the 
> water. So there was only a bit of scrap metal, probably
> nothing of 
> significant toxicity. The impact of this debris on the
> ocean ecology is 
> likely to be near zero.
> 
> Returning junk from low earth orbit is not currently
> practical in most 
> cases. The only option is to allow it to reenter and
> (mostly) burn up. I 
> suspect that the sum total of all the debris from space
> that has reached the 
> ground doesn't add up to one scuttled destroyer (with
> far more toxics in the 
> latter case as well). And ships are scuttled all the time,
> along with 
> thousands every year that are simply lost at sea.
> 
> Chris
> 
> *
> Chris L Peterson
> Cloudbait Observatory
> http://www.cloudbait.com
> 
> 
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Greg Catterton"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: 
> Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 11:41 AM
> Subject: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame
> on NASA
> 
> 
> > ""The junk was a tank full of ammonia
> coolant on the international space 
> > station that was no longer needed. Astronaut Clayton
> Anderson threw it 
> > overboard during a spacewalk in July 2007.
> >
> > Space station program manager Mike Suffredini said
> Monday that the debris 
> > splashed down somewhere between Australia and New
> Zealand Sunday night""
> >
> >
> > Am I alone in the idea that Nasa should be held
> criminaly liable for the 
> > polution of our waters?
> > If an ordinary person was to dump toxic material into
> the ocean, surely we 
> > would be in alot of trouble... just becouse they are
> Nasa does not make 
> > them above the law. Ammonia is highly toxic to marine
> life!
> > It is my opinion that this was an outright disrespect
> to the enviorment 
> > and a potential hazard to the marine life in the area
> of impact.
> > I am very upset about this and feel Nasa was totally
> wrong for the actions 
> > they have done.
> > This could have been handled in a much better fashion,
> and I for one would 
> > like to see Nasa held accountable for this.
> > I am really upset about this whole situtation.
> > surely if it had fallen on someones propery NASA would
> be in alot of 
> > trouble...
> > Shame on you NASA. Shame on you Clayton Anderson.
> 
> __
> http://www.meteoritecentral.com
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list


  

__
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA

[Mike Bandli]

Actually, fish and marine life have a better chance of dying from getting
hit on the head with stainless steel debris than the ammonia coolant. The
coolant was vaporized during re-entry. Besides, I rather toss the tank into
decay (with the flick of a finger!) than spend 10 million bringing it back
via the space shuttle.

Mike Bandli


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Greg
Catterton
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 10:41 AM
To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
Subject: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA

""The junk was a tank full of ammonia coolant on the international space
station that was no longer needed. Astronaut Clayton Anderson threw it
overboard during a spacewalk in July 2007. 

Space station program manager Mike Suffredini said Monday that the debris
splashed down somewhere between Australia and New Zealand Sunday night""


Am I alone in the idea that Nasa should be held criminaly liable for the
polution of our waters?
If an ordinary person was to dump toxic material into the ocean, surely we
would be in alot of trouble... just becouse they are Nasa does not make them
above the law. Ammonia is highly toxic to marine life!
It is my opinion that this was an outright disrespect to the enviorment and
a potential hazard to the marine life in the area of impact.
I am very upset about this and feel Nasa was totally wrong for the actions
they have done.
This could have been handled in a much better fashion, and I for one would
like to see Nasa held accountable for this.
I am really upset about this whole situtation.
surely if it had fallen on someones propery NASA would be in alot of
trouble... 
Shame on you NASA. Shame on you Clayton Anderson.





 


  

__
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list


__
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA

[Chris Peterson]

Hi Greg-

It is inaccurate to say that this object "splashed down". In fact, much of 
it burned away during reentry, leaving much smaller debris. It would seem 
extremely unlikely that any ammonia was left by the time pieces hit the 
water. So there was only a bit of scrap metal, probably nothing of 
significant toxicity. The impact of this debris on the ocean ecology is 
likely to be near zero.


Returning junk from low earth orbit is not currently practical in most 
cases. The only option is to allow it to reenter and (mostly) burn up. I 
suspect that the sum total of all the debris from space that has reached the 
ground doesn't add up to one scuttled destroyer (with far more toxics in the 
latter case as well). And ships are scuttled all the time, along with 
thousands every year that are simply lost at sea.


Chris

*
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com


- Original Message - 
From: "Greg Catterton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 11:41 AM
Subject: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA


""The junk was a tank full of ammonia coolant on the international space 
station that was no longer needed. Astronaut Clayton Anderson threw it 
overboard during a spacewalk in July 2007.


Space station program manager Mike Suffredini said Monday that the debris 
splashed down somewhere between Australia and New Zealand Sunday night""



Am I alone in the idea that Nasa should be held criminaly liable for the 
polution of our waters?
If an ordinary person was to dump toxic material into the ocean, surely we 
would be in alot of trouble... just becouse they are Nasa does not make 
them above the law. Ammonia is highly toxic to marine life!
It is my opinion that this was an outright disrespect to the enviorment 
and a potential hazard to the marine life in the area of impact.
I am very upset about this and feel Nasa was totally wrong for the actions 
they have done.
This could have been handled in a much better fashion, and I for one would 
like to see Nasa held accountable for this.

I am really upset about this whole situtation.
surely if it had fallen on someones propery NASA would be in alot of 
trouble...

Shame on you NASA. Shame on you Clayton Anderson.


__
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA

[Pete Pete]

I wouldn't mind if it landed on my property - right onto Ebay!

Cheers,
Pete





> Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 10:41:27 -0800
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> Subject: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA
>
> ""The junk was a tank full of ammonia coolant on the international space 
> station that was no longer needed. Astronaut Clayton Anderson threw it 
> overboard during a spacewalk in July 2007.
>
> Space station program manager Mike Suffredini said Monday that the debris 
> splashed down somewhere between Australia and New Zealand Sunday night""
>
>
> Am I alone in the idea that Nasa should be held criminaly liable for the 
> polution of our waters?
> If an ordinary person was to dump toxic material into the ocean, surely we 
> would be in alot of trouble... just becouse they are Nasa does not make them 
> above the law. Ammonia is highly toxic to marine life!
> It is my opinion that this was an outright disrespect to the enviorment and a 
> potential hazard to the marine life in the area of impact.
> I am very upset about this and feel Nasa was totally wrong for the actions 
> they have done.
> This could have been handled in a much better fashion, and I for one would 
> like to see Nasa held accountable for this.
> I am really upset about this whole situtation.
> surely if it had fallen on someones propery NASA would be in alot of 
> trouble...
> Shame on you NASA. Shame on you Clayton Anderson.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> __
> http://www.meteoritecentral.com
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

_

__
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Re: [meteorite-list] Cleaning Millbillillie (AD)

[RJP]

Yeah.. I'm sure you did. Was it a broken weathered fragment or just a chunk of 
red clay?

And I don't appreciate you responding to my AD through the list. Everyone knows 
that you obviously purchased a far lesser grade of meteorite than the one I 
have to offer. $5 per gram? C'mon now. Honestly.

Ryan
__
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

[meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA

[Greg Catterton]

""The junk was a tank full of ammonia coolant on the international space 
station that was no longer needed. Astronaut Clayton Anderson threw it 
overboard during a spacewalk in July 2007. 

Space station program manager Mike Suffredini said Monday that the debris 
splashed down somewhere between Australia and New Zealand Sunday night""


Am I alone in the idea that Nasa should be held criminaly liable for the 
polution of our waters?
If an ordinary person was to dump toxic material into the ocean, surely we 
would be in alot of trouble... just becouse they are Nasa does not make them 
above the law. Ammonia is highly toxic to marine life!
It is my opinion that this was an outright disrespect to the enviorment and a 
potential hazard to the marine life in the area of impact.
I am very upset about this and feel Nasa was totally wrong for the actions they 
have done.
This could have been handled in a much better fashion, and I for one would like 
to see Nasa held accountable for this.
I am really upset about this whole situtation.
surely if it had fallen on someones propery NASA would be in alot of trouble... 
Shame on you NASA. Shame on you Clayton Anderson.





 


  

__
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Re: [meteorite-list] Cleaning Millbillillie (AD)

[mckinney trammell]

just bought millb. on ebay for $5/g (red clay inc.).


--- On Mon, 11/3/08, RJP <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> From: RJP <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Cleaning Millbillillie (AD)
> To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> Date: Monday, November 3, 2008, 1:31 PM
> ..Or you can just purchase one that doesn't require any
> cleaning ; )
> 
> I have a lovely 212g individual complete with regmaglyps,
> glossy black fusion crust, and just enough staining, which
> adds to it's aesthetic qualities. $3180, OBO. Looking to
> make a quick sale on this one. 
> 
> Please email for photos if interested. Paypal accepted for
> those who wish to go that route. 
> 
> Thanks for looking folks!
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Ryan Pawelski
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> http://www.meteoritecentral.com
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list


  
__
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Re: [meteorite-list] Cleaning Millbillillie (AD)

[RJP]

..Or you can just purchase one that doesn't require any cleaning ; )

I have a lovely 212g individual complete with regmaglyps, glossy black fusion 
crust, and just enough staining, which adds to it's aesthetic qualities. $3180, 
OBO. Looking to make a quick sale on this one. 

Please email for photos if interested. Paypal accepted for those who wish to go 
that route. 

Thanks for looking folks!

Cheers,

Ryan Pawelski






__
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Re: [meteorite-list] cleaning Millbillillie ?

[Steve Dunklee]

Removing staining may give a meteorite a better visual appearance, but like 
with a valuable coin will remove valuable information. like age , original 
chemistry and possibly  fusion crust.
   If you had a proof silver dollar from 1860 would you soak it in oxalic acid 
to make it look better?

Have a great day!

Steve Dunklee


--- On Mon, 11/3/08, Steve Dunklee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> From: Steve Dunklee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] cleaning Millbillillie ?
> To: "Alexander Seidel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 
> meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED], "tett" <[EMAIL 
> PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: Monday, November 3, 2008, 11:19 AM
> Yes. So might msg, tsp, Dmso, and white vinegar. depending
> on a lot of conditions. Anything with HCL or flourine should
> be avoided, as well as Sulfuric acid.
> 
> Steve 
> P.S.  But Don't clean them! they are like coins!
> 
> 
> --- On Sun, 11/2/08, mckinney trammell
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > From: mckinney trammell
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] cleaning Millbillillie ?
> > To: "Alexander Seidel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED],
> "tett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Date: Sunday, November 2, 2008, 7:14 PM
> > would oxaclic acid work like is does when removing red
> clay
> > stains form quartz crystals?
> > 
> > 
> > --- On Sun, 11/2/08, tett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > 
> > > From: tett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] cleaning
> Millbillillie ?
> > > To: "Alexander Seidel"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Date: Sunday, November 2, 2008, 5:10 PM
> > > I now have a much deeper appreciation for
> > Millbillillie.
> > > 
> > > I will not attempt cleaning and will reflect on
> the
> > > "subtle" beauty these 
> > > meteorites have.
> > > 
> > > Many Thanks!
> > > 
> > > Mike
> > > 
> > > 
> > > - Original Message - 
> > > From: "Alexander Seidel"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > To: "tett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
> > > ; 
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2008 11:24 AM
> > > Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] cleaning
> Millbillillie ?
> > > 
> > > 
> > > >> I agree that there is a special
> > characteristic
> > > that would be lost if the
> > > >> red staining were to be removed from a
> > > Millbillillie individual. 
> > > >> However,
> > > >> it is also great to have meteorites
> pristine
> > with
> > > no terrestrial 
> > > >> alteration.
> > > >> The priciest Millbillillies are those
> that
> > with
> > > dark black glassy crusts.
> > > >
> > > > No, a meteorite like Millbillillie should be
> > looked at
> > > in a much more 
> > > > subtle way!
> > > >
> > > > It fell in 1960, and was collected no
> earlier
> > than 10
> > > years later! Talking 
> > > > about
> > > > Millbillillie is exciting in many respects,
> as it
> > e.
> > > g. displays different 
> > > > textures on
> > > > cut slices, but talking about exterior
> surface, I
> > > would always prefer a 
> > > > piece with
> > > > natural (laterite) patina over a piece which
> was
> > > somehow "cleaned" (..if 
> > > > this were
> > > > possible..) or has only got some more or
> less
> > glossy
> > > black crust alone 
> > > > rather than
> > > > the brownish-reddish surface stains that are
> so
> > very
> > > *typical* for this 
> > > > meteorite,
> > > > and are part of its "character",
> so to
> > > say...!
> > > >
> > > > You are right insofar as, when we are
> talking
> > about
> > > may be fresh Eucrites 
> > > > or fresh
> > > > Howardites, we are looking and longing for
> fresh
> > > glossy black crust in the 
> > > > first place,
> > > > as will be the case with e. g. the early
> > collected
> > > pieces of a historical 
> > > > fall like Stannern,
> > > > or some rare other finds and falls, but
> things
> > are a
> > > quite a bit different 
> > > > with a fall like
> > > > Millbillillie, even if it occured as late as
> > 1960,
> > > considered a "fresh" 
> > > > fall
> > > >
> > > > Well, nothing but my two (Euro-)Cents,
> > > > Alex
> > > > Berlin/Germany
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > __
> > > http://www.meteoritecentral.com
> > > Meteorite-list mailing list
> > > Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> > >
> >
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
> > 
> > 
> >   
> > __
> > http://www.meteoritecentral.com
> > Meteorite-list mailing list
> > Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> >
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
> 
> 
>   
> __
> http://www.meteoritecentral.com
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list


  
__
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Mete

Re: [meteorite-list] cleaning Millbillillie ?

[Steve Dunklee]

Yes. So might msg, tsp, Dmso, and white vinegar. depending on a lot of 
conditions. Anything with HCL or flourine should be avoided, as well as 
Sulfuric acid.

Steve 
P.S.  But Don't clean them! they are like coins!


--- On Sun, 11/2/08, mckinney trammell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> From: mckinney trammell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] cleaning Millbillillie ?
> To: "Alexander Seidel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 
> meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED], "tett" <[EMAIL 
> PROTECTED]>
> Date: Sunday, November 2, 2008, 7:14 PM
> would oxaclic acid work like is does when removing red clay
> stains form quartz crystals?
> 
> 
> --- On Sun, 11/2/08, tett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > From: tett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] cleaning Millbillillie ?
> > To: "Alexander Seidel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Date: Sunday, November 2, 2008, 5:10 PM
> > I now have a much deeper appreciation for
> Millbillillie.
> > 
> > I will not attempt cleaning and will reflect on the
> > "subtle" beauty these 
> > meteorites have.
> > 
> > Many Thanks!
> > 
> > Mike
> > 
> > 
> > - Original Message - 
> > From: "Alexander Seidel"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: "tett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
> > ; 
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2008 11:24 AM
> > Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] cleaning Millbillillie ?
> > 
> > 
> > >> I agree that there is a special
> characteristic
> > that would be lost if the
> > >> red staining were to be removed from a
> > Millbillillie individual. 
> > >> However,
> > >> it is also great to have meteorites pristine
> with
> > no terrestrial 
> > >> alteration.
> > >> The priciest Millbillillies are those that
> with
> > dark black glassy crusts.
> > >
> > > No, a meteorite like Millbillillie should be
> looked at
> > in a much more 
> > > subtle way!
> > >
> > > It fell in 1960, and was collected no earlier
> than 10
> > years later! Talking 
> > > about
> > > Millbillillie is exciting in many respects, as it
> e.
> > g. displays different 
> > > textures on
> > > cut slices, but talking about exterior surface, I
> > would always prefer a 
> > > piece with
> > > natural (laterite) patina over a piece which was
> > somehow "cleaned" (..if 
> > > this were
> > > possible..) or has only got some more or less
> glossy
> > black crust alone 
> > > rather than
> > > the brownish-reddish surface stains that are so
> very
> > *typical* for this 
> > > meteorite,
> > > and are part of its "character", so to
> > say...!
> > >
> > > You are right insofar as, when we are talking
> about
> > may be fresh Eucrites 
> > > or fresh
> > > Howardites, we are looking and longing for fresh
> > glossy black crust in the 
> > > first place,
> > > as will be the case with e. g. the early
> collected
> > pieces of a historical 
> > > fall like Stannern,
> > > or some rare other finds and falls, but things
> are a
> > quite a bit different 
> > > with a fall like
> > > Millbillillie, even if it occured as late as
> 1960,
> > considered a "fresh" 
> > > fall
> > >
> > > Well, nothing but my two (Euro-)Cents,
> > > Alex
> > > Berlin/Germany
> > >
> > >
> > > 
> > 
> > __
> > http://www.meteoritecentral.com
> > Meteorite-list mailing list
> > Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> >
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
> 
> 
>   
> __
> http://www.meteoritecentral.com
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list


  
__
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

[meteorite-list] advise needed on classification

[Greg Catterton]

I have come across some very interesting material I would like to get formally 
classified.
can anyone point me in the right direction for doing this?
I have had testing done on it and so far, it seems to be an LL3 with 
mesosiderite inclusions.
How would I go about submitting it?
Images of the material from testing can bee seen here:
http://www.hostingphpbb.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=115&mforum=wwwmeteoritesto

Thanks,

Greg


  

__
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Re: [meteorite-list] Unusual new lunar or hokum?

[Mike Jensen]

Hi All
This guy has been mentioned several times on the list and is a well
known scam artist. In fact he is so well know Randy Korotev has give
him his own page;
http://meteorites.wustl.edu/meteorwrongs/m239.htm
It is too bad some one possibly bought a piece of his garbage;
http://cgi.ebay.com/LUNAR-METEORITE-OLIVINE-GABBRO-64-4-GRAM-SLICE-NICE_W0QQitemZ350001108996
Hard to be sure though as the sellers ID is kept secret.

How about this auction of his. Is it an Imilac?
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=350114894419


BTW I am going to block him from bidding on any of my Ebay auctions.


Mike



Mike Jensen Meteorites
16730 E Ada PL
Aurora, CO 80017-3137
USA
720-949-6220
IMCA 4264
website: www.jensenmeteorites.com



On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 9:14 AM, Jason Utas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hola,
> This fellow's been selling complete crap for the past year or so.
> Terrestrial slag as a new "plessitic octahedrite," Campo del Cielo's
> as Canyon Diablo's (a difference of $200-250/kg in value), and bits of
> terrestrial metamorphic/igneous crap (see the link) as lunar material.
>  He's repeatedly shrugged off demands for real classifications, never
> mind his blatant selling of false and renamed material.
> There are people who make honest mistakes and there are cheaters.
> This one's about as sleazy as they get.
> Regards,
> Jason
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 7:50 AM, Stefan Brandes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> doesn´t this lunar have a name, with all this classification done???
>>
>> Stefan the lunatic
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Hi Group!
>>>
>>> I ran across this one on eBay today :
>>>
>>> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=350119620351
>>>
>>> Something about it doesn't ring true.
>>>
>>> There is a lot of quasi-scientific mumbo jumbo in the listing.
>>>
>>> Is this for real or some highly-misinformed individual?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> MikeG
>>>
>>>
>>> .
>>> Michael Gilmer (Louisiana, USA)
>>> Member of the Meteoritical Society.
>>> Member of the Bayou Region Stargazers Network.
>>> Websites - http://www.galactic-stone.com and http://www.glassthrower.com
>>> MySpace - http://www.myspace.com/fine_meteorites_4_sale
>>> ..
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> __
>>> http://www.meteoritecentral.com
>>> Meteorite-list mailing list
>>> Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
>>> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>>
>> __
>> http://www.meteoritecentral.com
>> Meteorite-list mailing list
>> Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
>> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>>
> __
> http://www.meteoritecentral.com
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
__
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Re: [meteorite-list] Unusual new lunar or hokum?

[Greg Catterton]

I recieved a sample of his "Lunar" for me to have tested - I told him I would 
buy it after I had it tested it IS NOT LUNAR. 
I even forwarded my test results to ebay who keeps allowing the clown to list 
it. Ebay is downright dirty and is boardering of contributing to fraud and this 
guys scam.
This guy is a liar, ebay knows it and has done nothing about it.


--- On Mon, 11/3/08, Michael Gilmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> From: Michael Gilmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: [meteorite-list] Unusual new lunar or hokum?
> To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> Date: Monday, November 3, 2008, 9:06 AM
> Hi Group!
> 
> I ran across this one on eBay today :
> 
> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=350119620351
> 
> Something about it doesn't ring true.
> 
> There is a lot of quasi-scientific mumbo jumbo in the
> listing.  
> 
> Is this for real or some highly-misinformed individual?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> MikeG
> 
> 
> .
> Michael Gilmer (Louisiana, USA)
> Member of the Meteoritical Society.
> Member of the Bayou Region Stargazers Network.
> Websites - http://www.galactic-stone.com and
> http://www.glassthrower.com
> MySpace - http://www.myspace.com/fine_meteorites_4_sale
> ..
> 
> 
> 
>   
> __
> http://www.meteoritecentral.com
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list


  

__
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Re: [meteorite-list] Unusual new lunar or hokum?

[Sean T. Murray]

Yes - it has a name - Asphalt 001.

Mitch is back... same old charts, different rocks.

1.) "Found by Starchasers Meteorites August 2005, ILLinois USA"
2.) "Classified by Starchasers Meteorite Curator Mitchell R. Minor"
3.) "Starchasers Meteorites is the Sole supplier for this Illinois USA Lunar 
Breccia Olivine Gabbro Mixed Mingled Mare Basalt"
4.) "Comes with Certificate Of Authenticity from Starchasers Meteorite 
Collection, and comes with LIFETIME AUTHENTICITY GUARANTEE. We guarantee all 
meteorites we sell are authentic, and we offer a 30 day money back 
satisfaction guarantee minus shipping cost"

(minus shipping cost?  Shipping is free!)

With a main mass of 11,150 lbs. Mitch will be setup for life if he can just 
find someone to buy it.  Though, shipping is free and it comes with one of 
Ron's membrane boxes :) - therefore it must be a lunar


YOU DON'T NEED A MICROSCOPE TO ENJOY THIS BEAUTY!
(but you do need some form of head trauma)

- Original Message - 
From: "Stefan Brandes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 10:50 AM
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Unusual new lunar or hokum?


doesn´t this lunar have a name, with all this classification done???

Stefan the lunatic





Hi Group!

I ran across this one on eBay today :

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=350119620351

Something about it doesn't ring true.

There is a lot of quasi-scientific mumbo jumbo in the listing.

Is this for real or some highly-misinformed individual?

Regards,

MikeG


.
Michael Gilmer (Louisiana, USA)
Member of the Meteoritical Society.
Member of the Bayou Region Stargazers Network.
Websites - http://www.galactic-stone.com and http://www.glassthrower.com
MySpace - http://www.myspace.com/fine_meteorites_4_sale
..




__
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list


__
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list 


__
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Re: [meteorite-list] Unusual new lunar or hokum?

[Darren Garrison]

On Mon, 03 Nov 2008 09:06:36 -0700, you wrote:

>Looks like a duck, walks like a duck, but it doesn't quack like a duck.  

A rule of thumb I have for anything is-- if it writes like a duck, it probably
should be avoided.  And that auction description is written as a duck had wrote
it-- meaning that the quality of the writing looks like a migratory waterfowl
has been pecking at a keyboard.  Anyone who is a native English speaker that
composes English text that badly has to have something wrong with them, and
should be treated with extreme suspicion.

Plus, this:

http://meteorite-identification.com/ebay/minor.html
__
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Re: [meteorite-list] Unusual new lunar or hokum?

[Stefan Brandes]

doesn´t this lunar have a name, with all this classification done???

Stefan the lunatic





Hi Group!

I ran across this one on eBay today :

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=350119620351

Something about it doesn't ring true.

There is a lot of quasi-scientific mumbo jumbo in the listing.

Is this for real or some highly-misinformed individual?

Regards,

MikeG


.
Michael Gilmer (Louisiana, USA)
Member of the Meteoritical Society.
Member of the Bayou Region Stargazers Network.
Websites - http://www.galactic-stone.com and http://www.glassthrower.com
MySpace - http://www.myspace.com/fine_meteorites_4_sale
..




__
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list 


__
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Re: [meteorite-list] Unusual new lunar or hokum?

[Jason Utas]

Hola,
This fellow's been selling complete crap for the past year or so.
Terrestrial slag as a new "plessitic octahedrite," Campo del Cielo's
as Canyon Diablo's (a difference of $200-250/kg in value), and bits of
terrestrial metamorphic/igneous crap (see the link) as lunar material.
 He's repeatedly shrugged off demands for real classifications, never
mind his blatant selling of false and renamed material.
There are people who make honest mistakes and there are cheaters.
This one's about as sleazy as they get.
Regards,
Jason


On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 7:50 AM, Stefan Brandes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> doesn´t this lunar have a name, with all this classification done???
>
> Stefan the lunatic
>
>
>
>
>> Hi Group!
>>
>> I ran across this one on eBay today :
>>
>> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=350119620351
>>
>> Something about it doesn't ring true.
>>
>> There is a lot of quasi-scientific mumbo jumbo in the listing.
>>
>> Is this for real or some highly-misinformed individual?
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> MikeG
>>
>>
>> .
>> Michael Gilmer (Louisiana, USA)
>> Member of the Meteoritical Society.
>> Member of the Bayou Region Stargazers Network.
>> Websites - http://www.galactic-stone.com and http://www.glassthrower.com
>> MySpace - http://www.myspace.com/fine_meteorites_4_sale
>> ..
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> __
>> http://www.meteoritecentral.com
>> Meteorite-list mailing list
>> Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
>> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
> __
> http://www.meteoritecentral.com
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
__
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Re: [meteorite-list] Unusual new lunar or hokum?

[Ted Bunch]

Hi Mike - I concur, the whole picture looks strange to me. A 5 ton lunar
meteorite in  one piece? Where were the O2 analyses done? There are only a
few trustworthy labs that can do O2 analyses. In any case, I don't think the
reported O2 data are that discriminating between lunar and terrestrial.
Some of the mineralogy looks OK, some does not. The plotted major oxide
compositional data look impressive for lunar origin, but there are
terrestrial mafic compositions that are just as lunar-looking. The hand
sample surface is very irregular and looks more like a weathered terrestrial
surface than fusion crust.

Looks like a duck, walks like a duck, but it doesn't quack like a duck.  My
advice is to wait until it has been officially classified and/or Randy
Korotev has looked it over before buying a piece. I also suggest that the
Starchaser group do FeO/MnO ratios on olivine and pyroxene. These ratios are
discriminating and can save everyone a lot of trouble. My guess is that this
"lunar" is a glacial erratic from Canada.

Buyer beware,

Ted Bunch




On 11/3/08 7:06 AM, "Michael Gilmer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Hi Group!
> 
> I ran across this one on eBay today :
> 
> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=350119620351
> 
> Something about it doesn't ring true.
> 
> There is a lot of quasi-scientific mumbo jumbo in the listing.
> 
> Is this for real or some highly-misinformed individual?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> MikeG
> 
> 
> .
> Michael Gilmer (Louisiana, USA)
> Member of the Meteoritical Society.
> Member of the Bayou Region Stargazers Network.
> Websites - http://www.galactic-stone.com and http://www.glassthrower.com
> MySpace - http://www.myspace.com/fine_meteorites_4_sale
> ..
> 
> 
> 
>   
> __
> http://www.meteoritecentral.com
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list


__
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

[meteorite-list] Ad - eBay auctions ending soon.

[star-bits]

Greetings all

I have a few auctions closing shortly including

Martian shergotite individuals currently less than $60/gm
Allende 18 gram piece with large CAI at $3.65/gm
Covert 29 grams with nice veining $1/gm
Camel donga currently at $2/gm
CR2  Dhofar 1432 at $0.50/gm
very large 27 gram henbury impactite at less than 10 cents per gram.  Last 
piece sold at $10/gm

See them all and others at


--
Eric Olson
610 W. Moore Rd
Tucson AZ 85755

http://www.star-bits.com

__
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

[meteorite-list] Unusual new lunar or hokum?

[Michael Gilmer]

Hi Group!

I ran across this one on eBay today :

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=350119620351

Something about it doesn't ring true.

There is a lot of quasi-scientific mumbo jumbo in the listing.  

Is this for real or some highly-misinformed individual?

Regards,

MikeG


.
Michael Gilmer (Louisiana, USA)
Member of the Meteoritical Society.
Member of the Bayou Region Stargazers Network.
Websites - http://www.galactic-stone.com and http://www.glassthrower.com
MySpace - http://www.myspace.com/fine_meteorites_4_sale
..



  
__
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list