Re: [meteorite-list] Just Another Question
Hi Pete and all, Reading the last paragraph of your statement lead me to believe you were inferring that an astronaut was throwing a rock out of orbit. My mistake. --AL Mitterling Pete Shugar wrote: I never said he was throwing the object. What I said was impart excape velocity to the object. This can be from a number of ways, such as an attached rocket, for example. Pete Pete Shugar also wrote: but non man made material shouldn't be penalized because an astronaught decided to impart excape velosity to a rock __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Just Another Question
Pete, This occurred to me many years ago - I always thought an Earth meteorite would be one of if not THE coolest meteorite Ever. Best wishes, Michael on 5/29/08 9:24 PM, Pete Shugar at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello list, I've given this more than just a passing thought as I think this is a very intreguing question. If an impactor smacks into the moon with enough energy, objects will be dislodged. If they make it to earth intact, we have a luner meteorite. Same goes for Mars and Astroid 4Vesta. So,.suppose we have a very high speed impactor that hits earth, and dislodges material that is now in orbit. If the material crosses Earth's orbit again, and survives to the surface of earth, would it be modified in it's appearance to the extent that it would be seen as a meteorite and not just another rock? Has anything ever been found that might be in this class of material? Would there be anything that would set it apart as a different rock/meteorite? Pete __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list Life is short! Break the rules! Forgive quickly! Kiss slowly! Love truly, Laugh uncontrollably.. And never regret anything that made you smile. __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Just Another Question
30, 2008 7:51 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Just Another Question Hi Pete, some material omitted Jeff states: Nothing like this has ever been found. Its distinguishing properties might be a fusion crust, evidence for cosmic-ray exposure in space, and lithology that is completely exotic for its find location. Without an exposure history (or being an observed fall) it would be a very tough sell. Hope that helps. All my best! --AL Mitterling Pete Shugar wrote: So if an object were to be taken into orbit and given excape velosity from earth's gravitational well such that it was not in orbit around earth, but in orbit around the sun and at a later time reentered earth's gravity well, passed thru the atmosphere and survived to impact the earth, it would not be a meteorite simply because it was not ejected fron terra firma by natural means? Granted that man made debri isn't classed as a meteorite but non man made material shouldn't be penalized because an astronaught decided to impart excape velosity to a rock,puting it into orbit around the sun. I say material surviving to impact from any source (excluding man made) would and should be called a meteorite. Pete __ 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 Dr. Jeffrey N. Grossman phone: (703) 648-6184 US Geological Survey fax: (703) 648-6383 954 National Center Reston, VA 20192, USA __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Just Another Question
Al M. wrote: I don't think it would be possible for an astronaut to throw an object, rock or otherwise out of the orbit of the Earth. Hi Al, Pete, Friends and Listees, Haven't kept with this thread, but I thought I'd add this info for the throwing arm of the astronaut to create an artificial meteorite from some favorite heights. I noticed Dr. Grossman mentioned the need for extraordinary evidence (i.e., claims by necessity must be treated with skepicism, until at least someone can show you a piece of it). Here are some of the physics: the minimum speeds the clever Astronaut would have TO THROW any object to gain an independent orbit from Earth: From the International Space station (One of the lowest satellites): 11,412 mph (7,091 Km/h) From a GPS satellite (nearly the highest): 3,692 mph (5,941 Km/h) He has to be clever as he needs to throw it exactly in his direction of motion to make the satellite's speed additive and also away from the Moon so that doesn't add significant additional speed required. I just used the 11.2 km/s value at Earth's surface which fails to take into consideration the air resistance (this is only partly why expecting material to survive the shear force going up through Earth's atmosphere is an Extra-ordinary claim). Not a problem - these are the right answers for space. The best baseball players on Earth have been clocked at around 100.9 mph. The best Jai-alai ball has been levered at about 188 mph. These speeds are taken over a very short distance from the throwing arm on Earth, so would be nearly the same in space. BTW, if an astronaut on the Moon wanted to throw something out of Lunar orbit, he would need to throw at 5,315 mph (8,554 Km/h) which would leave it barely moseying away from a Lunar orbit, but he would need it to end up at a minumum of over 3,220 mph (5,188 Km/h) more to then escape Earth. Throwing things at these speeds is of course hypothetical given the capabilities. Back to the original question Earth meteorite possible? to comment: These same capabilities need to be taken into consideration with regards to the mass integrity of any Earth ejecta. Assuming an object can hit Earth fast enough to impart sufficient velocity at cratering which will survive the trip back up and more importantly an order of magnitude more to rip it from Earth's gravitational grasp, is like assuming you can find a Nolan Ryan to pitch a ball at about 12,000 mph. It is also a possibility that no physical Nolan Ryan exists. Earth meteorites don't have a chance due to this reason, unless you make one modifying assumption: That the original impactor causing them creates a transient vacuum behind it long and straight enough for backspauled material to find its way out. THAT is an extraordinary claim unless we are talking major planet smasher and vapor condensation in space just to make sure the ejecta aren't too small or just plasma or molecules! Ojo, this means the cloud MUST condense in outer space while it is moving away at these speeds. That just adds another degree of complexity. Not impossible, of course. The jury is still out. I'd repost a recent answer about 6 months ago I made talking about the atmospheric dynamics required for Earth meteorites to happen but I'm not good at maintaning these old met-list links as some others :( Best wishes, Doug -Original Message- From: AL Mitterling [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Fri, 30 May 2008 7:51 pm Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Just Another Question Hi Pete, I don't think it would be possible for an astronaut to throw an object, rock or otherwise out of the orbit of the Earth. (lets not talk about the Hassablat that got away) Seems like that would be possible but if you think about it, both the astronaut and the rock are in orbit around the Sun. Even a hard throw towards the Sun would only start the rock moving back and forth in roughly the same orbit the Earth is in. You might have better luck with trying to reduce it's energy (a retro so to speak throw) so it would loose energy and fall into a tighter orbit towards the sun. You have to think about the actual speed the Earth is traveling around the Sun. Any throw would most likely not be able to leave the Earth/Moon orbit. Even if an astronaut was well away from the Earth Moon system in order for the astronaut to not drop directly into the Sun he would have to have an orbit around the Sun. So even throwing objects without major gravity near by would even be difficult. It's why objects in the inner solar system have a harder time coming out (gaining energy) than objects have loosing energy and going in towards the inner planets and Sun. Jeff Grossman wrote: to be called a meteorite, an object had to escape the dominant gravitational influence of its parent body. In this case, we would say that a terrestrial (Earth) meteorite would be an object
Re: [meteorite-list] Just Another Question
From the International Space station (One of the lowest satellites): 11,412 mph (7,091 Km/h) Oops: to get out of Earth orbit and become a meteoroid that should have been: From the International Space station (One of the lowest satellites): 7,091 mph (11,412 Km/h) Best wishes, Doug -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Sat, 31 May 2008 12:05 pm Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Just Another Question Al M. wrote: I don't think it would be possible for an astronaut to throw an object, rock or otherwise out of the orbit of the Earth. Hi Al, Pete, Friends and Listees, Haven't kept with this thread, but I thought I'd add this info for the throwing arm of the astronaut to create an artificial meteorite from some favorite heights. I noticed Dr. Grossman mentioned the need for extraordinary evidence (i.e., claims by necessity must be treated with skepicism, until at least someone can show you a piece of it). Here are some of the physics: the minimum speeds the clever Astronaut would have TO THROW any object to gain an independent orbit from Earth: From the International Space station (One of the lowest satellites): 11,412 mph (7,091 Km/h) From a GPS satellite (nearly the highest): 3,692 mph (5,941 Km/h) He has to be clever as he needs to throw it exactly in his direction of motion to make the satellite's speed additive and also away from the Moon so that doesn't add significant additional speed required. I just used the 11.2 km/s value at Earth's surface which fails to take into consideration the air resistance (this is only partly why expecting material to survive the shear force going up through Earth's atmosphere is an Extra-ordinary claim). Not a problem - these are the right answers for space. The best baseball players on Earth have been clocked at around 100.9 mph. The best Jai-alai ball has been levered at about 188 mph. These speeds are taken over a very short distance from the throwing arm on Earth, so would be nearly the same in space. BTW, if an astronaut on the Moon wanted to throw something out of Lunar orbit, he would need to throw at 5,315 mph (8,554 Km/h) which would leave it barely moseying away from a Lunar orbit, but he would need it to end up at a minumum of over 3,220 mph (5,188 Km/h) more to then escape Earth. Throwing things at these speeds is of course hypothetical given the capabilities. Back to the original question Earth meteorite possible? to comment: These same capabilities need to be taken into consideration with regards to the mass integrity of any Earth ejecta. Assuming an object can hit Earth fast enough to impart sufficient velocity at cratering which will survive the trip back up and more importantly an order of magnitude more to rip it from Earth's gravitational grasp, is like assuming you can find a Nolan Ryan to pitch a ball at about 12,000 mph. It is also a possibility that no physical Nolan Ryan exists. Earth meteorites don't have a chance due to this reason, unless you make one modifying assumption: That the original impactor causing them creates a transient vacuum behind it long and straight enough for backspauled material to find its way out. THAT is an extraordinary claim unless we are talking major planet smasher and vapor condensation in space just to make sure the ejecta aren't too small or just plasma or molecules! Ojo, this means the cloud MUST condense in outer space while it is moving away at these speeds. That just adds another degree of complexity. Not impossible, of course. The jury is still out. I'd repost a recent answer about 6 months ago I made talking about the atmospheric dynamics required for Earth meteorites to happen but I'm not good at maintaning these old met-list links as some others :( Best wishes, Doug -Original Message- From: AL Mitterling [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Fri, 30 May 2008 7:51 pm Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Just Another Question Hi Pete, I don't think it would be possible for an astronaut to throw an object, rock or otherwise out of the orbit of the Earth. (lets not talk about the Hassablat that got away) Seems like that would be possible but if you think about it, both the astronaut and the rock are in orbit around the Sun. Even a hard throw towards the Sun would only start the rock moving back and forth in roughly the same orbit the Earth is in. You might have better luck with trying to reduce it's energy (a retro so to speak throw) so it would loose energy and fall into a tighter orbit towards the sun. You have to think about the actual speed the Earth is traveling around the Sun. Any throw would most likely not be able to leave the Earth/Moon orbit. Even if an astronaut was well away from the Earth Moon system in order for the astronaut to not drop directly into the Sun he would have to have an orbit around
Re: [meteorite-list] Just Another Question
Hi Doug, Pete and all, Thanks Doug for the figures you would have to throw at. Looks like our astronaut isn't going to be launching anything too far out. I appreciate the figures to back up my claim!! --AL Mitterling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Al M. wrote: I don't think it would be possible for an astronaut to throw an object, rock or otherwise out of the orbit of the Earth. Hi Al, Pete, Friends and Listees, Haven't kept with this thread, but I thought I'd add this info for the throwing arm of the astronaut to create an artificial meteorite from some favorite heights. I noticed Dr. Grossman mentioned the need for extraordinary evidence (i.e., claims by necessity must be treated with skepicism, until at least someone can show you a piece of it). Here are some of the physics: the minimum speeds the clever Astronaut would have TO THROW any object to gain an independent orbit from Earth: From the International Space station (One of the lowest satellites): 11,412 mph (7,091 Km/h) From a GPS satellite (nearly the highest): 3,692 mph (5,941 Km/h) He has to be clever as he needs to throw it exactly in his direction of motion to make the satellite's speed additive and also away from the Moon so that doesn't add significant additional speed required. I just used the 11.2 km/s value at Earth's surface which fails to take into consideration the air resistance (this is only partly why expecting material to survive the shear force going up through Earth's atmosphere is an Extra-ordinary claim). Not a problem - these are the right answers for space. The best baseball players on Earth have been clocked at around 100.9 mph. The best Jai-alai ball has been levered at about 188 mph. These speeds are taken over a very short distance from the throwing arm on Earth, so would be nearly the same in space. BTW, if an astronaut on the Moon wanted to throw something out of Lunar orbit, he would need to throw at 5,315 mph (8,554 Km/h) which would leave it barely moseying away from a Lunar orbit, but he would need it to end up at a minumum of over 3,220 mph (5,188 Km/h) more to then escape Earth. Throwing things at these speeds is of course hypothetical given the capabilities. Back to the original question Earth meteorite possible? to comment: These same capabilities need to be taken into consideration with regards to the mass integrity of any Earth ejecta. Assuming an object can hit Earth fast enough to impart sufficient velocity at cratering which will survive the trip back up and more importantly an order of magnitude more to rip it from Earth's gravitational grasp, is like assuming you can find a Nolan Ryan to pitch a ball at about 12,000 mph. It is also a possibility that no physical Nolan Ryan exists. Earth meteorites don't have a chance due to this reason, unless you make one modifying assumption: That the original impactor causing them creates a transient vacuum behind it long and straight enough for backspauled material to find its way out. THAT is an extraordinary claim unless we are talking major planet smasher and vapor condensation in space just to make sure the ejecta aren't too small or just plasma or molecules! Ojo, this means the cloud MUST condense in outer space while it is moving away at these speeds. That just adds another degree of complexity. Not impossible, of course. The jury is still out. I'd repost a recent answer about 6 months ago I made talking about the atmospheric dynamics required for Earth meteorites to happen but I'm not good at maintaning these old met-list links as some others :( Best wishes, Doug __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Just Another Question
I never said he was throwing the object. What I said was impart excape velocity to the object. This can be from a number of ways, such as an attached rocket, for example. Pete - Original Message - From: AL Mitterling [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2008 12:30 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Just Another Question Hi Doug, Pete and all, Thanks Doug for the figures you would have to throw at. Looks like our astronaut isn't going to be launching anything too far out. I appreciate the figures to back up my claim!! --AL Mitterling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Al M. wrote: I don't think it would be possible for an astronaut to throw an object, rock or otherwise out of the orbit of the Earth. Hi Al, Pete, Friends and Listees, Haven't kept with this thread, but I thought I'd add this info for the throwing arm of the astronaut to create an artificial meteorite from some favorite heights. I noticed Dr. Grossman mentioned the need for extraordinary evidence (i.e., claims by necessity must be treated with skepicism, until at least someone can show you a piece of it). Here are some of the physics: the minimum speeds the clever Astronaut would have TO THROW any object to gain an independent orbit from Earth: From the International Space station (One of the lowest satellites): 11,412 mph (7,091 Km/h) From a GPS satellite (nearly the highest): 3,692 mph (5,941 Km/h) He has to be clever as he needs to throw it exactly in his direction of motion to make the satellite's speed additive and also away from the Moon so that doesn't add significant additional speed required. I just used the 11.2 km/s value at Earth's surface which fails to take into consideration the air resistance (this is only partly why expecting material to survive the shear force going up through Earth's atmosphere is an Extra-ordinary claim). Not a problem - these are the right answers for space. The best baseball players on Earth have been clocked at around 100.9 mph. The best Jai-alai ball has been levered at about 188 mph. These speeds are taken over a very short distance from the throwing arm on Earth, so would be nearly the same in space. BTW, if an astronaut on the Moon wanted to throw something out of Lunar orbit, he would need to throw at 5,315 mph (8,554 Km/h) which would leave it barely moseying away from a Lunar orbit, but he would need it to end up at a minumum of over 3,220 mph (5,188 Km/h) more to then escape Earth. Throwing things at these speeds is of course hypothetical given the capabilities. Back to the original question Earth meteorite possible? to comment: These same capabilities need to be taken into consideration with regards to the mass integrity of any Earth ejecta. Assuming an object can hit Earth fast enough to impart sufficient velocity at cratering which will survive the trip back up and more importantly an order of magnitude more to rip it from Earth's gravitational grasp, is like assuming you can find a Nolan Ryan to pitch a ball at about 12,000 mph. It is also a possibility that no physical Nolan Ryan exists. Earth meteorites don't have a chance due to this reason, unless you make one modifying assumption: That the original impactor causing them creates a transient vacuum behind it long and straight enough for backspauled material to find its way out. THAT is an extraordinary claim unless we are talking major planet smasher and vapor condensation in space just to make sure the ejecta aren't too small or just plasma or molecules! Ojo, this means the cloud MUST condense in outer space while it is moving away at these speeds. That just adds another degree of complexity. Not impossible, of course. The jury is still out. I'd repost a recent answer about 6 months ago I made talking about the atmospheric dynamics required for Earth meteorites to happen but I'm not good at maintaning these old met-list links as some others :( Best wishes, Doug __ 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] Just Another Question
Just going backwards in this and noticed Dr. Grossman said: Alan Rubin and I grappled with this issue in our article in Meteorite! 10 years ago ... definition that would exclude things like tektites from being called meteorites ... we would say that a terrestrial meteorite would be an object ejected from earth by natural causes (i.e., by impact), which entered an orbit around the sun and later was re-accreted by the earth. ... Nothing like this has ever been found. Its distinguishing properties might be a fusion crust ... I liked that useage of the word, might regarding fusion crust, and the exclusion of tektites. Personally, I'd be looking for things that look just like tektites but with cosmic ray evidence. Tektites do not have an easily identifyable fusion crust, but in the case of something that condensed in its own orbit around the Sun, procedent from a very recent impact on Earth, they might re-melt on the surfaces years later on re-entry and sculpt an interesting layer we might call fusion crust by a stretch of the definition of fusion crust. While there is a lot to be said for the Peruvian event, I still think a Terrestrial meteorite would more likely look a lot like a tektite. Comment? Best wishes, Doug -Original Message- From: Jeff Grossman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Fri, 30 May 2008 5:29 am Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Just Another Question Alan Rubin and I grappled with this issue in our article in Meteorite! 10 years ago, What is a meteorite? The pursuit of a comprehensive definition. We wanted a definition that would exclude things like tektites from being called meteorites. Our definition then said that, to be called a meteorite, an object had to escape the dominant gravitational influence of its parent body. In this case, we would say that a terrestrial meteorite would be an object ejected from earth by natural causes (i.e., by impact), which entered an orbit around the sun and later was re-accreted by the earth. Nothing like this has ever been found. Its distinguishing properties might be a fusion crust, evidence for cosmic-ray exposure in space, and lithology that is completely exotic for its find location. Without an exposure history (or being an observed fall) it would be a very tough sell... a Wingstar. Jeff At 12:24 AM 5/30/2008, Pete Shugar wrote: Hello list, I've given this more than just a passing thought as I think this is a very intreguing question. If an impactor smacks into the moon with enough energy, objects will be dislodged. If they make it to earth intact, we have a luner meteorite. Same goes for Mars and Astroid 4Vesta. So,.suppose we have a very high speed impactor that hits earth, and dislodges material that is now in orbit. If the material crosses Earth's orbit again, and survives to the surface of earth, would it be modified in it's appearance to the extent that it would be seen as a meteorite and not just another rock? Has anything ever been found that might be in this class of material? Would there be anything that would set it apart as a different rock/meteorite? Pete __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list Dr. Jeffrey N. Grossman phone: (703) 648-6184 US Geological Survey fax: (703) 648-6383 954 National Center Reston, VA 20192, USA __ 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] Just Another Question
Hi, Jeff and List, I make no assertion as to the true meteoritic status of Bleckenstad or any of the more interesting pseudometeorites, for the simple reason that nobody seems to know where most of them are any more, so it is impossible to perform the tests that are now available which would settle the matter in short order. It seems to me that Monica Grady, looking for a possible Martian sedimentary stone, was requesting museums and collections to look for such anomalous stones as might be found in their dusty drawers or cabinets in this publication (p. 77): http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19960027473_1996032004.pdf It seems likely, though, that meteorite curators through the ages, having been presented with a fossiliferous sedimentary rock, would probably not have been able to assess the true nature of such a terrestrial meteorite (notwithstanding the protestations of the owner). How many of these types of sample have been returned to sender? More pertinently perhaps, how many such samples are still preserved in traditional collections? As for SGU (the ones that lost the stone), Dr. Assar Hadding, who championed that stone, lost his job as head of the SGU (and curator of the National Museum) over his analysis of this stone. It seems possible to me that this fact may have conceivably biased their opinion. It is also not clear to me how the SGU of 1982 could determine the probable fall location of a bolide observed in 1925. Did they have a good radar network in rural Sweden in 1925? (Omitting entirely the possibility that fragments from a friable object might be shed along its path.) Since the SGU and the National Museum were united at the time (Hadding was head of both), it would seem the logical refutation would be to produce the stone they curated for modern analysis, but -- it's lost. As a general proposition, throwing away the evidence in a controversy seems a poor idea to me. One might even call it cheating. If Bleckenstad had not been discarded, we could learn a lot more about it than was possible in 1925. Certainly, most fireball-backyard-rock stories are tabloid junk. While Assar Hadding is hardly a household name, Googling reveals a large number of citations to his work (after a century), which suggests that his work was sound. There is still a Geology Prize in Sweden named after him, and genuses of extinct creatures have been named after him. He was the first (in 1920-1) to probe the composition and structure of minerals with a an X-ray spectrograph of his own design, a minerological procedure now known as x-ray spectroscopy, and he is considered to be one of the contributors to the invention of the electron microscope: http://web.mac.com/elleryfrahm/iWeb/Microprobe/Electron%20Microprobe%20Analysis%20in%20Archaeology/B5DE5349-7CDC-4813-9BED-9EB4B9DD05EF.html I assume from this that Assar was no dummie, although he certainly may have been wrong about Bleckenstad. To his credit, he later decided that the explanation for Bleckenstad was that it was a terrestrial limestone that had been blasted from the Earth and returned as a meteorite -- an Earthite. I cannot determine if he was the inventor of the concept of a terrestrial meteorite or not, but he certainly came to it early (1952), presumably on his own. Jeff says, Show me the object, and I heartily agree and wish it was possible. Sterling K. Webb - - Original Message - From: Jeff Grossman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2008 8:00 AM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Just Another Question Dear Sterling and list, Although these reports are intriguing, there is still no convincing evidence that any of these things are meteorites. I wish I had a nickel for every I saw a fireball and collected this weird rock in my backyard story I've investigated. That SGU report from 1982 does not seem to be quoting dogma. The abstract says Observations of the bolide connected with the doubtful meteorite Bleckenstad show that, if a meteorite fell, it could not have happened at Bleckenstad but far to the south. I haven't read the paper, but it sounds like they did science. I have an open mind about the possibility of terrestrial meteorites (especially on the Moon), but it seems to me that the old Sagan quote about extraordinary claims applies. Show me the object and show me the evidence. Until somebody proves it, they are nothing more than wingstars. Jeff At 12:08 AM 5/31/2008, Sterling K. Webb wrote: Hi, All, This is an old Post of mine from 2003 (and quotes from an even earlier one): Actually, there are a number of sedimentary meteorites. It's just that they are not acknowledged to be meteorites. If you have the CDROM of the Catalogue, have the software assemble you a list of pseudometeorites that are not irons. Or just search for BLECKENSTAD (April 11, 1925
Re: [meteorite-list] Just Another Question Esoterica
All this escape velocity discussion jogged my memory about an urban myth regarding the first man made object launched into space. Didn't take an astronaut or a formal space program... According to one version, one of the underground American atomic test (Operation Plumbbob 1957?) had a manhole cover covering the top of the 500 ft deep emplacement tunnel shaft under ground zero. High speed cameras caught the launch.. The shot director Brownlee is reported to have confirmed tis years later but given the secrecy of the time we may never fully know. Much of the details around myth seem to be inaccurate. You be the judge. If true, the plug/cover was also possibly the first man made object to leave the solar system, as well Elton Links here: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread4434/pg http://nasafan.blogspot.com/2006/04/first-manmade-object-in-space.html http://www.boingboing.net/2006/01/02/did-a-half-ton-steel.html Excerpt: The legend states that the first manmade object in space was a manhole cover launched by accident in 1957. While this certainly can't be true, the story that lead to this story is. In the 1950s, America was still conducting open air nuclear tests. In one test, they placed an atomic bomb at the bottom of a 500 foot shaft. For their next test the scientists wanted to know how the fireball would react to being partially contained. So they set up an identical test except they covered the hole with a 4 inch thck, 500 pound steel plate. They knew that it would be blown off, but they didn't know how far and didn't really care. The day for the test arrived, and the bomb was detonated, and everything went according to plan except for one thing... The steel plate was captured by high speed cameras leaving the area at 5 times the speed necessary to escape the Earth's gravitational field: about 100,000 miles per hour. 100,000 miles per hour!!? That's enough to escape the entire solar system! The cover was never found, and people started to wonder if it could have actually made it into space. Unfortunately for our story, there is no way that the manhole cover could survive the remarkable atmospheric pressures it would have encountered while moving at those speeds. Much like a meteor moving at cosmic speeds, it simply would have vaporized. Oh well, it was still a pretty crazy story. __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Just Another Question
Alan Rubin and I grappled with this issue in our article in Meteorite! 10 years ago, What is a meteorite? The pursuit of a comprehensive definition. We wanted a definition that would exclude things like tektites from being called meteorites. Our definition then said that, to be called a meteorite, an object had to escape the dominant gravitational influence of its parent body. In this case, we would say that a terrestrial meteorite would be an object ejected from earth by natural causes (i.e., by impact), which entered an orbit around the sun and later was re-accreted by the earth. Nothing like this has ever been found. Its distinguishing properties might be a fusion crust, evidence for cosmic-ray exposure in space, and lithology that is completely exotic for its find location. Without an exposure history (or being an observed fall) it would be a very tough sell... a Wingstar. Jeff At 12:24 AM 5/30/2008, Pete Shugar wrote: Hello list, I've given this more than just a passing thought as I think this is a very intreguing question. If an impactor smacks into the moon with enough energy, objects will be dislodged. If they make it to earth intact, we have a luner meteorite. Same goes for Mars and Astroid 4Vesta. So,.suppose we have a very high speed impactor that hits earth, and dislodges material that is now in orbit. If the material crosses Earth's orbit again, and survives to the surface of earth, would it be modified in it's appearance to the extent that it would be seen as a meteorite and not just another rock? Has anything ever been found that might be in this class of material? Would there be anything that would set it apart as a different rock/meteorite? Pete __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list Dr. Jeffrey N. Grossman phone: (703) 648-6184 US Geological Survey fax: (703) 648-6383 954 National Center Reston, VA 20192, USA __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Just Another Question
A related question I pondered a while back: How big does an object need to be to be a 'parent body'? Is the meteorite ever the full remnant of the PB? In other words, can something be big and coherent enough to survive passage through the atmosphere and produce a meteorite, which hasn't previously been part of a much larger body? My (rather ill-educated) guess would be that candidates would be very primitive and undifferentiated, with a very pretty low density. Mark Quoting Jeff Grossman [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Alan Rubin and I grappled with this issue in our article in Meteorite! 10 years ago, What is a meteorite? The pursuit of a comprehensive definition. We wanted a definition that would exclude things like tektites from being called meteorites. Our definition then said that, to be called a meteorite, an object had to escape the dominant gravitational influence of its parent body. __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Just Another Question
So if an object were to be taken into orbit and given excape velosity from earth's gravitational well such that it was not in orbit around earth, but in orbit around the sun and at a later time reentered earth's gravity well, passed thru the atmosphere and survived to impact the earth, it would not be a meteorite simply because it was not ejected fron terra firma by natural means? Granted that man made debri isn't classed as a meteorite but non man made material shouldn't be penalized because an astronaught decided to impart excape velosity to a rock,puting it into orbit around the sun. I say material surviving to impact from any source (excluding man made) would and should be called a meteorite. Pete - Original Message - From: Jeff Grossman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Friday, May 30, 2008 5:29 AM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Just Another Question Alan Rubin and I grappled with this issue in our article in Meteorite! 10 years ago, What is a meteorite? The pursuit of a comprehensive definition. We wanted a definition that would exclude things like tektites from being called meteorites. Our definition then said that, to be called a meteorite, an object had to escape the dominant gravitational influence of its parent body. In this case, we would say that a terrestrial meteorite would be an object ejected from earth by natural causes (i.e., by impact), which entered an orbit around the sun and later was re-accreted by the earth. Nothing like this has ever been found. Its distinguishing properties might be a fusion crust, evidence for cosmic-ray exposure in space, and lithology that is completely exotic for its find location. Without an exposure history (or being an observed fall) it would be a very tough sell... a Wingstar. Jeff At 12:24 AM 5/30/2008, Pete Shugar wrote: Hello list, I've given this more than just a passing thought as I think this is a very intreguing question. If an impactor smacks into the moon with enough energy, objects will be dislodged. If they make it to earth intact, we have a luner meteorite. Same goes for Mars and Astroid 4Vesta. So,.suppose we have a very high speed impactor that hits earth, and dislodges material that is now in orbit. If the material crosses Earth's orbit again, and survives to the surface of earth, would it be modified in it's appearance to the extent that it would be seen as a meteorite and not just another rock? Has anything ever been found that might be in this class of material? Would there be anything that would set it apart as a different rock/meteorite? Pete __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list Dr. Jeffrey N. Grossman phone: (703) 648-6184 US Geological Survey fax: (703) 648-6383 954 National Center Reston, VA 20192, USA __ 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] Just Another Question
Hi Pete, I don't think it would be possible for an astronaut to throw an object, rock or otherwise out of the orbit of the Earth. (lets not talk about the Hassablat that got away) Seems like that would be possible but if you think about it, both the astronaut and the rock are in orbit around the Sun. Even a hard throw towards the Sun would only start the rock moving back and forth in roughly the same orbit the Earth is in. You might have better luck with trying to reduce it's energy (a retro so to speak throw) so it would loose energy and fall into a tighter orbit towards the sun. You have to think about the actual speed the Earth is traveling around the Sun. Any throw would most likely not be able to leave the Earth/Moon orbit. Even if an astronaut was well away from the Earth Moon system in order for the astronaut to not drop directly into the Sun he would have to have an orbit around the Sun. So even throwing objects without major gravity near by would even be difficult. It's why objects in the inner solar system have a harder time coming out (gaining energy) than objects have loosing energy and going in towards the inner planets and Sun. Jeff Grossman wrote: to be called a meteorite, an object had to escape the dominant gravitational influence of its parent body. In this case, we would say that a terrestrial (Earth) meteorite would be an object ejected from earth by natural causes (i.e., by impact), which entered an orbit around the sun and later was re-accreted (fell as a meteoroid, became a meteor and then meteorite when it survived passage) by and to the earth. Jeff states: Nothing like this has ever been found. Its distinguishing properties might be a fusion crust, evidence for cosmic-ray exposure in space, and lithology that is completely exotic for its find location. Without an exposure history (or being an observed fall) it would be a very tough sell. Hope that helps. All my best! --AL Mitterling Pete Shugar wrote: So if an object were to be taken into orbit and given excape velosity from earth's gravitational well such that it was not in orbit around earth, but in orbit around the sun and at a later time reentered earth's gravity well, passed thru the atmosphere and survived to impact the earth, it would not be a meteorite simply because it was not ejected fron terra firma by natural means? Granted that man made debri isn't classed as a meteorite but non man made material shouldn't be penalized because an astronaught decided to impart excape velosity to a rock,puting it into orbit around the sun. I say material surviving to impact from any source (excluding man made) would and should be called a meteorite. Pete __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Just Another Question
Hi, All, This is an old Post of mine from 2003 (and quotes from an even earlier one): Actually, there are a number of sedimentary meteorites. It's just that they are not acknowledged to be meteorites. If you have the CDROM of the Catalogue, have the software assemble you a list of pseudometeorites that are not irons. Or just search for BLECKENSTAD (April 11, 1925) SWEDEN, a sedimentary meteorite of white limestone complete with fossil shells. It was reported on by Dr. Assar Hadding of the Swedish Geological Institute in 1939 who, after a long investigation, decided it really was a meteorite. The chief reason for so believing is that it is a WITNESSED FALL and you really can't get much better than that. BLECKENSTAD, Ostergotland, Sweden, April 11, 1925 A meteor was observed, leaving a trail of smoke. Stones are said to have fallen, and fragments of a white, porous limestone were picked up, differing from the local rocks. The possibly meteoritic nature of this material has been the subject of considerable discussion, N. Zenzen (1942, 1943); A. Hadding (1943); F.C. Cross (1947). Pseudometeorite, F.E. Wickman A. Uddenberg-Anderson (1982). However, he was widely regarded as whacky and shut up about it for 20 years. Hadding was so discouraged by the reception of his earlier paper that, when he discovered another sedimentary meteorite, he threw it away! Only much later, in the 1950's, when he realized that they could have been Earthites, did he write about the two stones again. [Earthites are meteorites blasted off the Earth into independent orbit, then later encounter the Earth as a meteoroid. Simulations by Jay Melosh suggested the process could take from 100,000 years to 5 million years.] The modern SGU official report on the stone: http://www.sgu.se/cgi-bin/egwcgi/53210/screen.tcl/name=show_recordformat=normalhost=georegentry1=0560field1=komlogic1=attr1=page=2norec=1service=sgulang=eng The stone described as a limestone... hence is a pseudometeorite. (1982) Boy, there's nothing like dogma for settling an issue quickly, is there? Here is an article by Nininger that contains a fuller account of Bleckenstad's fall: http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1967Metic...3..239N/245.000.html I can't cut'n'paste from this article because it's an image; jump ahead to page 245. A smooth gloss of a fusion crust is reported. Multiple witnesses to the fall. No native limestone in the area. Monica Grady discusses sedimentary meteorites in this 1994 Workshop (p.77): http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19960027473_1996032004.pdf Nininger is said to have found a small sedimentary meteorite, on March 24, 1933, while searching for fragments of Pasamonte. The stone in question was a dirty grey limestone with fragmentary shell bits fossilized in it and sporting a black fusion crust. He ruled out an artificial origin for the crust but was unwilling to claim it was a meteorite, apparently not because he didn't think it was a meteorite but because it wasn't worth the noise... Frank Cross wrote about sedimentary meteorites at length in the journal Popular Astronomy (Vol. 55, 1947, pp. 96-102), citing Trevlac (Indiana) and Montrose (West Virginia), two independently discovered sedimentary meteorites with identical green glassy crusts. The whereabouts of most of the sedimentary pseudometeorites is unknown, not surprising considering their reception, so the sophisticated tests that could be performed today are impossible. There's a kind of self-reinforcing judgement at work in that. 1. fusion crust, Check. 2. evidence for cosmic-ray exposure in space, Not Tested. 3. lithology that is completely exotic for its find location, Check. 4. being an observed fall, Check. 5. whereabouts, Unknown. Sterling K. Webb -- - Original Message - From: AL Mitterling [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Friday, May 30, 2008 7:51 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Just Another Question Hi Pete, some material omitted Jeff states: Nothing like this has ever been found. Its distinguishing properties might be a fusion crust, evidence for cosmic-ray exposure in space, and lithology that is completely exotic for its find location. Without an exposure history (or being an observed fall) it would be a very tough sell. Hope that helps. All my best! --AL Mitterling Pete Shugar wrote: So if an object were to be taken into orbit and given excape velosity from earth's gravitational well such that it was not in orbit around earth, but in orbit around the sun and at a later time reentered earth's gravity well, passed thru the atmosphere and survived to impact the earth, it would not be a meteorite simply because it was not ejected fron terra firma by natural means? Granted that man made debri isn't classed as a meteorite but non man
[meteorite-list] Just Another Question
Hello list, I've given this more than just a passing thought as I think this is a very intreguing question. If an impactor smacks into the moon with enough energy, objects will be dislodged. If they make it to earth intact, we have a luner meteorite. Same goes for Mars and Astroid 4Vesta. So,.suppose we have a very high speed impactor that hits earth, and dislodges material that is now in orbit. If the material crosses Earth's orbit again, and survives to the surface of earth, would it be modified in it's appearance to the extent that it would be seen as a meteorite and not just another rock? Has anything ever been found that might be in this class of material? Would there be anything that would set it apart as a different rock/meteorite? Pete __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] Just a Question
Is it not very strange that I find so many meteowrongs in the same place? Some in the same meter square? In an area where no natural igneous rocks exist? I dont blame you, one day you will discover the value of these whatever they are. The sky is BIG, it can drop down anything. Take It Easy Mohamed __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Just a Question
Is it not very strange that I find so many meteowrongs in the same place? This may be a good sign. Isn't "admitting you have a probem" the first step towards recovery?
Re: [meteorite-list] Just a Question
Mohamed, May I suggest an explanation for your finding interesting rocks in an area you claim has none? Over the past 40 years, I've spent a lot of time collecting interesting rocks during my travels around the western United States. While out hiking or hunting, I've got a habit of picking up just about anything that looks interesting or out of place. As the day wears on and my pack gets heavier, I often reevaluate the effort it takes to carry some of the rocks and their value to me. Many of them are often discarded along the trail many miles from where I picked them up. Here's an even better example. I have a good friend who collected a trailer full of coprolite specimens near Lake Powell (Utah) about 12 years ago. On his way home, one of the wheel hubs on his trailer broke while he was still on a rugged dirt road and about 50 miles away from the collection site. Not wanting someone to steal his coprolite while he went for repair parts, he hid his load of coprolite in a ravine a short distance off the road. Several days later, when he returned with the parts, he found someone had stolen his trailer. Now he had no way to haul away his precious cargo of coprolite. As far as both of us know, the pile of coprolite is still sitting in the ravine just waiting to be discovered by someone out walking in the area. Remember now, this pile of coprolite is 50 miles from the actual collection site and in a totally different geological area. Whoever finds it might jump to the conclusion that the site in the ravine is the actual place where it weathered out of the earth after 65 million year. Their ignorance could allow them to make an incorrect assumption. Who knows, they might even have a good enough imagination to decide they fell from the sky. There are a lot of different scenarios that can result in rocks being found in places where they normally shouldn't be. Many, like erosion, can be explained, but others cannot. Such is the case with your rocks. Just because you can't, or don't, understand how they got to where you found them, doesn't mean the only explanation is they fell out of the sky. I understand your enthusiasm. Please divert some of it into getting yourself educated about minerals and meteorites. Your time out in the field will become a lot more productive. Regards, John Gwilliam At 11:03 PM 2/2/02 +0400, DiamondMeteor wrote: Is it not very strange that I find so many meteowrongs in the same place? Some in the same meter square? In an area where no natural igneous rocks exist? I dont blame you, one day you will discover the value of these whatever they are. The sky is BIG, it can drop down anything. Take It Easy Mohamed __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list John Gwilliam Meteorites PO Box 26854 Tempe AZ 85285 http://www.meteoriteimpact.com __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Just a Question
PUT DOWN THE PIPE BACK AWAY FROM THE HOOKA...Get some fresh air dude. Igneous rocks can be anywhere. Believe it or not the Earths crust was once molten, and it has changed a few times in say the last 4 BILLION YEARS. We have a Lake in ArizonaBartlett Lake...If you take a gold pan there and pan anywhere on the shore you will find TONS of Black Sand and rotted quartsz which is usually found with GOLD. IF you pan a little longer you will end up ounces and ounces of a fine GOLD Metal. Spend a whole day there and you could end up with a pound of the stuff. It LOOKS Like Gold, It is found in a Gold bearing region of the US, and is found in conjunction with rotted quartz and black sand...following your way of thinking IT MUST BE GOLD!!! EUREKA I AM RICH BUT you can not tell anyone about my strikeI do not want anyone coming here and stealing all the GOLD. Thanks Mohamed...you helped realize that IF I want something badly enough all I have to do is BELIEVE in it to the point of ridicule and it WILL BE SO! Mark M. - Original Message - From: DiamondMeteor [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: metlist [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2002 12:03 PM Subject: [meteorite-list] Just a Question Is it not very strange that I find so many meteowrongs in the same place? Some in the same meter square? In an area where no natural igneous rocks exist? I dont blame you, one day you will discover the value of these whatever they are. The sky is BIG, it can drop down anything. Take It Easy Mohamed __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Just a Question
Hello all I will not answer more to this email, to sincerely have tired me. I invite Mr.Mohamed to visit the Italian rivers in sand bank and it will find tons to them of its meteorites. Regards Matteo --- DiamondMeteor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is it not very strange that I find so many meteowrongs in the same place? Some in the same meter square? In an area where no natural igneous rocks exist? I dont blame you, one day you will discover the value of these whatever they are. The sky is BIG, it can drop down anything. Take It Easy Mohamed __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list = M come Meteorite - Matteo Chinellato Via Triestina 126/A - 30030 - TESSERA, VENEZIA, ITALY Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sale Site: http://www.mcomemeteorite.com Collection Site: http://www.mcomemeteorite.info International Meteorite Collectors Association #2140 MSN Messanger: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EBAY.COM:http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ __ Do You Yahoo!? Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! http://auctions.yahoo.com __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Just a Question
Is it not very strange that I find so many meteowrongs in the same place? Nope. Not very strange. I, too, can find so many meteorwrongs in my front yard, in my back yard, down the street and over the hill. My neighbor can find many meteorwrongs, too. Pretty much the same for my brother in Santa Cruz, and a guy I know near San Antonio. They're rocks, dude. Meteorwrong = rock. Rocks are common. Multi-rocks. Lotsa rocks. Lotsa rocks, yes...lotsa meteorites, no. *sigh* Gregory __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
