[meteorite-list] AD Meteorites of Asia, Middle East, Australia and Antarctica : Preorder now at a special price !
Hello to the List, You can preorder now at a special price the METEORITES OF ASIA, MIDDLE EAST, AUSTRALIA AND ANTARCTICA CD-ROM It's the most complete source of information about these meteorites that you'll find anywhere. It contains : - all meteorite of the Middle East (Oman...), of Asia, of Australia and of Antarctica - many exclusive and rare pictures (we were allowed to use the Antarctica meteorite pictures, courtesy of the NASA) - a search engine to find everything you're searching for on the CD (with single or multiple criterias. New version faster) - an easy to navigate CD content with many shortcuts - a selection of useful web links - a glossary - a complete classification table - maps of all countries USAGE The CD is in English and is readable on Apple PC computers (with Internet Explorer navigator or compatible navigator) SPECIAL PREORDER PRICE UNTIL September 30th, 2005 - Europe (euro zone) : 20 euros (shipment included) - Rest of the World : US$ 24.95 (shipment included) When released, prices will raise to 24 euros/ $29.95 CDROMS will start shipping at the end of September 2005 PAYMENT - Only with Paypal (accounts : [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Thanks for your attention. Meteorite of Africa, Meteorites of Europa and Meteorites of America CD-ROM are still available at these prices : 24 euros or US$29.95 each). BUY 4, GET 1 FREE ! Pierre-Marie PELE www.meteor-center.com P.S. Look at the latest Meteorite Magazine for a complete review of Meteorites of Europa and Meteorites of America CDROM ! ___ Appel audio GRATUIT partout dans le monde avec le nouveau Yahoo! Messenger Téléchargez cette version sur http://fr.messenger.yahoo.com __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] One Find, Two Astronomers: An Ethical Brawl
Hi, Rob, List
No, Ortiz hasn't replied yet, even though you will note
Brown has been repeatedly asking him to explain since July
without any response from him, which is why Brown gave up on
trying to resolve things peaceable and private. Ortiz can
communicate with the NYTimes, though: I do not enjoy...
so much questioning. No, I'll bet he don't!
The reason why 2003 EL61 is very simple -- it's 100 times
brighter than 2003 UB313, even though the later is larger.
Ortiz' scope (a brace of small telescopes at the Sierra
Nevada Observatory, in Granada) couldn't pick up a 19th
mag object like 2003 UB313, so no way he could claim it!
Neither is the other one (I forget its number) bright
enough for Ortiz to observe... But 2003 EL61 is 16th mag!
The timing of the log accesses from Ortiz' OWN
COMPUTER make it crystal clear. It's a case of being
caught with your hand in the cookie jar, crumbs on
your face, smears of chocolate chips on your lips...
By all means, let us adopt the standards of the day:
the ALLEDGED hand in the ALLEDGED cookie jar is
all the ALLEDGED evidence for the ALLEDGED theft
of the ALLEDGED planetary discovery that an average
observer really needs to persuade one's ALLEDGED
common sense...
Yes, it is (just barely) conceivable that 2003 EL61
was discovered on July 25 by Mr. Santos-Sanz as a
slow-moving object on images taken in March 2003
and that Ortiz went to Brown's logs to verify that the
object he had just discovered was the object K40506A,
which Brown had ALREADY announced observations of.
Would that make it his discovery? Emphatically, No.
Yes, Ortiz had photographed (alledgedly photographed?)
the object in 2003, but did he discover that BEFORE he
accessed Brown's logs or AFTER? Remember, Brown has
already published on K40506A (without giving its sky
coordinates), so that photographing it would not constitute
discovery. It has, after all, been photographed since
1955 by a variety of scopes and observers. Galling, I'm
sure it was. ANNOUNCING makes it a discovery.
As the article says: Were he and his colleagues only
checking to see if Dr. Brown's object was the same as
theirs to confirm their own discovery? Or did they use
the information to find the object and beat the Caltech
team? Both actions would violate scientific ethics but
with varying degrees of seriousness...
Yeah, that's a very genteel way of putting it:
petty larceny versus grand larceny. Ortiz was just
checking those cookies, right? IF he discovered an
object and feared it MIGHT be K40506A, the thing
to do would be to have announced WITHOUT checking.
Then, if it turned out to be K40506A, he would have,
at the least, been listed as co-discoverer and probably as
principal discoverer, given that his was the shoestring
and brave effort at a small underdog observatory, etc.,
etc.
There's even a certain similarity to another discovery
story: Kansas farm boy after years of toil at discredited
observatory discovers new world! What Ortiz did ('cuse me,
ALLEDGEDLY did) was a foolish and stupid thing to do.
He could have played those cards so much better. You'll
recall that Brown immediately acknowledged him as
discoverer BEFORE his access was identified.
So I ask, in return, if Prtiz knew he had photographed
a heliocentric object, why did he go to Brown's logs
at all? Why not just announce?
Far and away the most likely sequence was his log
access, observation, then finding he'd already
photographed it, argh! then announcing. It must
have been frustrating, yes, but...
Or, perhaps the correct term for the offense is:
GRAND THEFT, PLANET.
Sterling K. Webb
--
Matson, Robert wrote:
Hi Sterling and List,
It may be premature to jump to conclusions about the true chain
of events and the reasoning behind them -- Ortiz hasn't responded
yet to the allegations, so it is quite possible that there is a
less nefarious explanation.
Two interesting facts to consider:
1. Ortiz's team DID observe the object on three separate nights in
2003. Either this is an extraordinary coincidence, or Ortiz has
been imaging huge swaths of the sky over the last 2-3 years.
(Such searches could not be confined to the ecliptic region
since this object is not in the ecliptic.)
2. Why steal 2003 EL61, when Ortiz could just as easily have
scooped the larger 2003 UB313?
--Rob
__
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] One Find, Two Astronomers: An Ethical Brawl
WHO KNEW there was so much drama in the lonely lives of the reclusive
astronomer?!
This one might even inspire a new Tom Clancey espionage book! ;]
I have little doubt that Dr Brown will eventually get the credit.
From: Sterling K. Webb [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Matson, Robert
[EMAIL PROTECTED],'meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com '
meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] One Find, Two Astronomers: An Ethical Brawl
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 03:38:33 -0500
Hi, Rob, List
No, Ortiz hasn't replied yet, even though you will note
Brown has been repeatedly asking him to explain since July
without any response from him, which is why Brown gave up on
trying to resolve things peaceable and private. Ortiz can
communicate with the NYTimes, though: I do not enjoy...
so much questioning. No, I'll bet he don't!
The reason why 2003 EL61 is very simple -- it's 100 times
brighter than 2003 UB313, even though the later is larger.
Ortiz' scope (a brace of small telescopes at the Sierra
Nevada Observatory, in Granada) couldn't pick up a 19th
mag object like 2003 UB313, so no way he could claim it!
Neither is the other one (I forget its number) bright
enough for Ortiz to observe... But 2003 EL61 is 16th mag!
The timing of the log accesses from Ortiz' OWN
COMPUTER make it crystal clear. It's a case of being
caught with your hand in the cookie jar, crumbs on
your face, smears of chocolate chips on your lips...
By all means, let us adopt the standards of the day:
the ALLEDGED hand in the ALLEDGED cookie jar is
all the ALLEDGED evidence for the ALLEDGED theft
of the ALLEDGED planetary discovery that an average
observer really needs to persuade one's ALLEDGED
common sense...
Yes, it is (just barely) conceivable that 2003 EL61
was discovered on July 25 by Mr. Santos-Sanz as a
slow-moving object on images taken in March 2003
and that Ortiz went to Brown's logs to verify that the
object he had just discovered was the object K40506A,
which Brown had ALREADY announced observations of.
Would that make it his discovery? Emphatically, No.
Yes, Ortiz had photographed (alledgedly photographed?)
the object in 2003, but did he discover that BEFORE he
accessed Brown's logs or AFTER? Remember, Brown has
already published on K40506A (without giving its sky
coordinates), so that photographing it would not constitute
discovery. It has, after all, been photographed since
1955 by a variety of scopes and observers. Galling, I'm
sure it was. ANNOUNCING makes it a discovery.
As the article says: Were he and his colleagues only
checking to see if Dr. Brown's object was the same as
theirs to confirm their own discovery? Or did they use
the information to find the object and beat the Caltech
team? Both actions would violate scientific ethics but
with varying degrees of seriousness...
Yeah, that's a very genteel way of putting it:
petty larceny versus grand larceny. Ortiz was just
checking those cookies, right? IF he discovered an
object and feared it MIGHT be K40506A, the thing
to do would be to have announced WITHOUT checking.
Then, if it turned out to be K40506A, he would have,
at the least, been listed as co-discoverer and probably as
principal discoverer, given that his was the shoestring
and brave effort at a small underdog observatory, etc.,
etc.
There's even a certain similarity to another discovery
story: Kansas farm boy after years of toil at discredited
observatory discovers new world! What Ortiz did ('cuse me,
ALLEDGEDLY did) was a foolish and stupid thing to do.
He could have played those cards so much better. You'll
recall that Brown immediately acknowledged him as
discoverer BEFORE his access was identified.
So I ask, in return, if Prtiz knew he had photographed
a heliocentric object, why did he go to Brown's logs
at all? Why not just announce?
Far and away the most likely sequence was his log
access, observation, then finding he'd already
photographed it, argh! then announcing. It must
have been frustrating, yes, but...
Or, perhaps the correct term for the offense is:
GRAND THEFT, PLANET.
Sterling K. Webb
--
Matson, Robert wrote:
Hi Sterling and List,
It may be premature to jump to conclusions about the true chain
of events and the reasoning behind them -- Ortiz hasn't responded
yet to the allegations, so it is quite possible that there is a
less nefarious explanation.
Two interesting facts to consider:
1. Ortiz's team DID observe the object on three separate nights in
2003. Either this is an extraordinary coincidence, or Ortiz has
been imaging huge swaths of the sky over the last 2-3 years.
(Such searches could not be confined to the ecliptic region
since this object is not in the ecliptic.)
2. Why steal 2003 EL61, when Ortiz could just as easily have
scooped the larger 2003 UB313?
--Rob
__
Meteorite-list mailing list
[meteorite-list] New google Search Engine for Blogs
There is a Google new search engine for searching blogs. An article about it is: Google Launches Tool to Search for Blog Updates Associated Press, September 15, 2005 http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-blog15sep15,1,4950803.story?coll=la-headlines-business Google blog search engine is found at http://blogsearch.google.com/ using it a person can find all sorts of meteorwrongs. :-) A good example can be seen at: http://www.markcarey.com/mars/discuss-15539-french-blueberries.html Paul H Baton Rouge, LA __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Is this a meteorite ?
mmmfor me is not a meteorite Matteo --- Pelé Pierre-Marie [EMAIL PROTECTED] ha scritto: Hello to the List, Someone asked me to show this discovery in a field somewhere in France... http://www.meteor-center.com/000_0334.jpg It looks like a meteorite but it isn't magnetic (or lightly). What is your opinion ? Best regards, Pierre-Marie PELE www.meteor-center.com ___ Appel audio GRATUIT partout dans le monde avec le nouveau Yahoo! Messenger Téléchargez cette version sur http://fr.messenger.yahoo.com __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.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.it Collection Site: http://www.mcomemeteorite.info MSN Messanger: spacerocks at hotmail.com EBAY.COM:http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/mcomemeteorite/ ___ Yahoo! Messenger: chiamate gratuite in tutto il mondo http://it.messenger.yahoo.com __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] One Find, Two Astronomers: An Ethical Brawl
Darren Garrison posted: September 13, 2005 One Find, Two Astronomers: An Ethical Brawl By DENNIS OVERBYE http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/13/science/space/13plan.html?pagewanted=all Related web pages are: The discovery of 2003 UB313, the 10th planet. http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~mbrown/planetlila/ What is the real story about the hasty announcement and the reports of hacking? http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~mbrown/planetlila/#hack The electronic trail of the discovery of 2003 EL61 http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~mbrown/planetlila/ortiz/ Best Regards, Paul __ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Is this a meteorite ?
Hi Listees! I´ve seen a lot of weathered rocks like this in Namibia (mostly lime-stones). But I wouldn´t expect this sort of weathering in France. To check it out put a little drop of acid (HCl 10% or less) on the surface. Make sure, that there is no dirt on the surface of the rock (could contain lime). If you see bubbles, it´s limestone. Meteorites and HCl would´t show a reaktion. Ingo --- Ursprüngliche Nachricht --- Von: Pelé Pierre-Marie [EMAIL PROTECTED] An: MeteoriteList meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Betreff: [meteorite-list] Is this a meteorite ? Datum: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 14:36:05 +0200 (CEST) Hello to the List, Someone asked me to show this discovery in a field somewhere in France... http://www.meteor-center.com/000_0334.jpg It looks like a meteorite but it isn't magnetic (or lightly). What is your opinion ? Best regards, Pierre-Marie PELE www.meteor-center.com ___ Appel audio GRATUIT partout dans le monde avec le nouveau Yahoo! Messenger Téléchargez cette version sur http://fr.messenger.yahoo.com __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list -- GMX DSL = Maximale Leistung zum minimalen Preis! 2000 MB nur 2,99, Flatrate ab 4,99 Euro/Monat: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/dsl __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re-2: [meteorite-list] Is this a meteorite ?
Hello Ingo, Confrère Pierre, and List, I've seen a lot of weathered rocks like this in Namibia (mostly lime-stones). But I wouldn't expect this sort of weathering in France. To check it out put a little drop of acid (HCl 10% or less) on the surface. Make sure, that there is no dirt on the surface of the rock (could contain lime). If you see bubbles, it's limestone. Meteorites and HCl would't show a reaction. Ingo .. or just cut it and look what's inside! Best regards, Bernd To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] Hayabusa Arrives at Itokawa, Starts Hovering Operations
http://www.jaxa.jp/press/2005/09/20050914_hayabusa_e.html Hayabusa arrives at Itokawa, starts hovering operations Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) September 14, 2005 The Hayabusa spacecraft successfully arrived at its target, the near Earth asteroid Itokawa (25143), at 01:00 UTC(10:00 JST) on September 12th. Hayabusa performed a short chemical thruster burn to slow its asteroid-relative speed by 7 centimeters per second to settle into the Gate Position, defined at a distance of 20 kilometers from Itokawa towards the Earth. Hayabusa is now hovering with respect to Itokawa and the project has made a great step toward its scientific observations of the asteroid. Hayabusa's main purpose is to demonstrate key technologies required for future planetary exploration. Hayabusa was launched in May 2003. In May 2004, the spacecraft performed an Earth gravity assist while using ion engine propulsion, this was the first time a spacecraft has flown such a powered flyby. During its approach to rendezvous, the visible imager carried by Hayabusa succeeded in taking multi-band filter photographs of Itokawa, as the asteroid rotated. This press release contains the resulting synthesized pseudo-color image and a series of rotation pictures of Itokawa. In the images, sunlight illuminates the asteroid from behind the camera, making the terrain features appear more subdued. Most of the key images obtained by the mission to date are available on the JAXA main web-site (http://www.jaxa.jp) and the ISAS (Institute of Space and Astronautical Science) main web-site (http://www.isas.jaxa.jp). The Hayabusa spacecraft is in good health and all its scientific instruments (consisting of a visible imager, a near infra-red and X-ray spectrometer and a laser altimeter) are functioning normally and have started their calibration observations. Hayabusa will stay at the asteroid until the end of November and plans to perform detailed remote sensing and mapping of the asteroid, followed by an attempt to collect surface samples of Itokawa. The project goals are then to return the sample back to Earth in 2007. Updated information and future press releases about the mission will be available at the JAXA and ISAS web-sites. The Hayabusa project is a collaborative mission with participation by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) of the United States. The Hayabusa project expresses its appreciation to NASA for its support of the mission. Images taken by AMICA, the Hayabusa visible imager. September 11th, 09:24 (UTC)(18:24 JST), at 25 kilometers distance from Itokawa. Field of view: 2 degrees by 2 degrees each. Left: v (540nm) band monochrome. Right: b (420nm), v (540nm), w (700nm) bands. These are synthesized to a BVR image with equal weighting. A Rotation sequence observed on September 10th and 11th. (v-band) The rotation period is about 12 hours. The rotation pole points downward in the images. About: Asteroid Sample-return Spacecraft HAYABUSA (MUSES-C) http://www.isas.jaxa.jp/e/enterp/missions/hayabusa/index.shtml For inquiries: Public Affairs Department, JAXA Tel: +81-3-6266-6413 through to -6416 __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] ad Mesosiderite NWA 2945
Hello list member . My company Northwest Airlines went into bankruptcy yesterday . I probably am out of a job at age 58 . I have dropped the price is this wonderful mesosiderite to $2.25/g for museum grade specimens and to $2 /g for smaller and excellent specimens . I have many other specimens to look at on my website please look , http://www.meteorites4sale.net/ http://www.meteorites4sale.net/Mesosiderite_Sale.htm I will releasing Space Rocks V our CD on meteorites with our complete Book on the CD over one thousand pictures and movies . Over 600 mb of material and over 5,000 man hours to produce . It was first started in 1997 and revised and modified to this date 9/15/2005 The price will be $99 with Free shipping worldwide and Papal accepted If you are interested please Email me off the list . Thank you for your support in these hard times for me and my family !!! Kenneth Regelman __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] Ceres: Asteroid or Miniplanet?
http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/Sept05/Ceres.to.html Asteroid or miniplanet? Cornell astronomer finds Ceres appears to have shape and interior similar to terrestrial planets By Thomas Oberst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Cornell University News Service September 15, 2005 ITHACA, N.Y. -- When is a space rock more than just a space rock? Ceres 1 was already holding the title of the solar system's largest asteroid. Now new observations show the space rock may be more worthy of the appellation miniplanet. On Sept. 7 NASA released photographs of Ceres that show the rock is a smooth ellipsoid, or oblong sphere, with an average diameter of approximately 590 miles -- about the size of Texas. A scientific paper on the findings, by a group led by Peter C. Thomas, senior research associate at Cornell University's Center for Radiophysics and Space Research, appeared in the Sept. 9 issue of the journal Nature. Co-author Joel Parker, an astronomer at the Southwest Research Institute in Boulder, Colo., used the Hubble Space Telescope's Advanced Camera for Surveys to snap 267 images of Ceres on Dec. 28, 2003, during a nine-hour period -- one Ceres day. Being ellipsoid and smooth is special for a rock. It indicates that the body is heavy enough to possess gravity strong enough to suck its own surface smooth -- a process called gravitational relaxing. Because the process typically requires a mass of many trillions of tons, depending on the temperature, the average pebble is not going to be gravitationally relaxed; even most asteroids aren't. By combining the new information on Ceres' roundness with previous independent measurements of its mass, Thomas and his colleagues inferred that Ceres must have a differentiated interior similar to the terrestrial planets. Although this possibility had been previously predicted, it was not widely accepted. We used the best telescope available to apply a basic geophysical test of other people's predictions, Thomas said. Based on their own models and observations, Thomas and his colleagues believe Ceres contains a rocky silicate core and icy mantel covered by a crust of carbon-rich compounds and clays. Furthermore, they predict that the icy mantel may contain more frozen water than all of the fresh water on Earth. Whenever water is mentioned, people ask about life. But Thomas says the possibility is very remote, noting that even if the interior of Ceres were warm enough for some of the water to liquefy, Ceres probably lacked a sufficient energy source for life to develop. Ceres was discovered in 1801 by Sicilian astronomer Giuseppe Piazzi and declared to be the missing planet predicted between Mars and Jupiter. However, the title was revoked in 1802 when Ceres was found to be a member of the hundreds of thousands of other rocks and debris of the Asteroid Belt. Since the discovery of 2003 UB313 -- which some have hailed as the tenth planet -- in July, some astronomers (and many non-astronomers) have begun to question whether objects such as Ceres should also be enshrined as planets. Thomas professes a lack of concern about Ceres' place in the solar system. There are plenty of other interesting things and processes in Ceres to contemplate rather than whether or not it should be called a planet, he said. But for those who prefer a more definitive answer, Thomas offers: You can call Ceres a 'minor planet' or 'miniplanet' if you'd like, but I would not call it a 'full-fledged planet.' The other authors of the Nature paper are L.A. McFadden of the University of Maryland, S.A. Stern and E.F. Young of the Southwest Research Institute, C.T. Russell of the University of California-Los Angeles and M.V. Sykes of the Planetary Science Institute, Tuscon, Ariz. Funding for the project was provided by NASA through the Space Telescope Science Institute. Thomas Oberst is a writing intern at the Cornell News Service. -30- __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] Cassini Probe Spies Spokes in Saturn's Rings
http://space.com/scienceastronomy/050915_cassini_spokes.html Cassini Probe Spies Spokes in Saturn's Rings By Tariq Malik space.com 15 September 2005 The Cassini spacecraft orbiting Saturn has finally spotted spokes cutting across the planet's rings, a phenomenon astronomers have long hoped their plucky orbiter might find. While flying past the dark side of Saturn's B ring, Cassini's camera eye photographed the spokes - which appear as radial markings - in a series of three images taken over about 27 minutes. The find is a gem of sorts for mission imaging scientists, who have been hunting for the ring spokes since Cassini arrived at Saturn. We've been on the lookout for them since February, 2004, said Carolyn Porco, Cassini imaging team leader at the Space Science Institute in Boulder, CO, of the spokes in an e-mail interview. Spokes are one of those Saturn-system phenomena that we are keenly interested in understanding. Saturn's odd ring spokes were first discovered during NASA's Voyager mission, which swung passed the planet in the 1980s, and later observed by astronomers using the Hubble Space Telescope. But spokes were noticeably absent http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/cassini_saturn_040227.html when Cassini made its final approach toward Saturn in February 2004, and are a prime target for astronomers because their role and formation within the planet's rings are not fully understood. These are among the things we hope to learn, said Porco, who participated in the Voyager mission as well. [The spokes] are obviously related to a host of processes - and may point to some important effects in understanding the magnetic field and the planet's magnetosphere, and how these systems interact with the rings and atmosphere. Porco and her imaging team did not initially expect to observe ring spokes until about 2007, when certain models predicted spoke formation and visibility. Well, in some sense we should have expected, if the recent models are correct, to see them on the dark side where the photoelectron abundance is low, Porco said of the spokes. So, I was surprised to see them. But once they showed up, I realized we should have expected them there all along. While the images were released on Sept. 13, Cassini actually photographed the ring spokes on Sept. 5, 2005, using clear filters and its wide-angle camera from a distance of about 198,000 miles (318,000 kilometers) from Saturn. The spokes themselves are fairly faint, and are about 60 miles (100 kilometers) wide and 2,200 miles (3,500 kilometers) long, researchers said. Unlike Voyager or Hubble, Cassini is in a unique position to study ring spoke phenomena at Saturn, Porco said. Remember, Voyager was just a flyby, Cassini is in orbit, Porco said, adding that Cassini is a vastly superior observation platform when compared to Voyager. We have the opportunity for monitoring them and their behavior, their comings and goings, how they evolve, when they appear and disappear. By observing the spokes on the dark side of Saturn's rings, Cassini recreated a bit of space exploration history. Its predecessor, Voyager, also first observed the ring spoke phenomena while photographing the unilluminated side of the Saturn's rings. It felt like the old days, when we first saw the spokes, Porco said. They are one weird phenomena and it was a joy to see them again - especially since we hadn't seen them yet and were eager to know why. __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] Re: Cassini Probe Spies Spokes in Saturn's Rings
So, what is the origin of these 'spokes'? The best theory I've seen, is that the spokes are actually shadows of particles above the ring. A meteoroid occassionally punches through Saturn's rings, and particles are dispersed and some are trapped in Saturn's magnetic field and held suspended above the ring plane, casting their shadow below. The particles do move around a little, and movement in the spokes have been observed. If the theory is true, then this would be a transient event, and so it is not surprising that Cassini did not see the spokes right away, and the fact that it just recently observed the spokes indicates a meteoroid has recently passed through Saturn's rings. Ron Baalke __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] NEW - Fresh CV3 - NWA 3144 Show and Tell
Dear List Members, Since the list is a little slow at the moment, I thought I would share a photo of a new and Very fresh CV3 I brought back from Morocco last year. It is NWA 3144 and is not paired to the others like NWA 3118. The same lab classified both (or at least worked on it in part) and determined NWA 3144 is fresher and not paired. There was a single stone that I and the lead scientist were trying to get into a prominent museum but after several months of no communication on their part, I decided to give up on trying to preserve the single stone for one entity. This is so nice that I now feel it should be shared with all. Here is a photo of a 39.3 gram complete slice: http://www.lunarrock.com/9-14/dsc00056.jpg I hope you enjoyed the photo, I may share photos of other new material I have if given the time. Best regards, Greg Hupe The Hupe Collection naturesvault (eBay) [EMAIL PROTECTED] IMCA 2185 __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] NEW - Fresh CV3 - NWA 3144 Show and Tell
Mah...for me its the same paired to the other NWA CV3, look the pieces I have in collection http://it.geocities.com/mcomemeteoritecollection/NWA2180gr.51.4.JPG http://it.geocities.com/mcomemeteoritecollection/NWAX126X.JPG I not see the difference Matteo --- Greg Hupe [EMAIL PROTECTED] ha scritto: Dear List Members, Since the list is a little slow at the moment, I thought I would share a photo of a new and Very fresh CV3 I brought back from Morocco last year. It is NWA 3144 and is not paired to the others like NWA 3118. The same lab classified both (or at least worked on it in part) and determined NWA 3144 is fresher and not paired. There was a single stone that I and the lead scientist were trying to get into a prominent museum but after several months of no communication on their part, I decided to give up on trying to preserve the single stone for one entity. This is so nice that I now feel it should be shared with all. Here is a photo of a 39.3 gram complete slice: http://www.lunarrock.com/9-14/dsc00056.jpg I hope you enjoyed the photo, I may share photos of other new material I have if given the time. Best regards, Greg Hupe The Hupe Collection naturesvault (eBay) [EMAIL PROTECTED] IMCA 2185 __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.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.it Collection Site: http://www.mcomemeteorite.info MSN Messanger: spacerocks at hotmail.com EBAY.COM:http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/mcomemeteorite/ ___ Yahoo! Messenger: chiamate gratuite in tutto il mondo http://it.messenger.yahoo.com __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] NEW - Fresh CV3 - NWA 3144 Show and Tell
Mah...for me its the same paired to the other NWA CV3, look the pieces I have in collection http://it.geocities.com/mcomemeteoritecollection/NWA2180gr.51.4.JPG http://it.geocities.com/mcomemeteoritecollection/NWAX126X.JPG I not see the difference i not see the diffrence between axtel and other desert cv3 - does that mean they are paired too? __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] One Find, Two Astronomers: An Ethical Brawl
Hello Sterling, Rob, Paul and others following the astronomical brawl, The Andalucian Astrophysic's webpage of discovery was suspiciously removed from the internet, but the cached version from August 16, 2005 is still ethically:) available at the following web address, along with the first English explanation given by Ortiz of the Spanish team. Even if you have condemned him to die in academic hell, it is worth seeing the page alone just to see the gif image of the disputed discovery moving through the stars, along with the orbit he independently calculated from his prior images: http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:QJqYiiZyE84J:www.iaa.es/~ortiz/brighttno.h tml+hl=enie=UTF-8 When participating in a brawl, it is always a good idea to see both points of view, even as you throw your punches at the other side. There has always been a great deal of resentment, especially heard from the Spanish in the spanish-language astronomy discussion groups against those who hoard information for a long time. Part of the equation I believe is large aperature and instrument envy. Part is an opinion of academic greed. There are no patents, though, as science doesn't wait for egos, just information... There is so much these lesser known but expert groups have to offer, and many consider themselves just as good or better, just frustrating victims of not having a big enough budget. Mike Brown acknowledged that he took a calculated risk and lost initially. While the ethical can of worms is difficult here, I would interpret that as Mike Brown accepting that first publication of orbit trumps, which he decisively proved he believed by releasing the other two immediately. I don't believe Mike's original congratulations to Ortiz were genuine in view of this. I believe he was setting Ortiz up from the start. Sterling - did you consider that as your jaw dropped about the ease of validating IP addresses? And I would congratulate Brown on that strategy as he minimized his mudslinging until it counts. And...from Brown's point of view Ortiz really deserves it! No doubt! Hopefully for Ortiz, there are no politics of joint projects that the Director of his institution will have to weigh in the investigation. Just as Mike Brown comments in his defense against the allegedly manufactured argument of withholding discovery information, that he wants to release it as a complete, well done job, because he dedicates his career to this and he deserves that payback, other less financially endowed groups see it differently - using the same logic. I've dedicated my entire career to this, can make plenty of contributions, (and I am better than them if I had those resources) but that group won't even leave the crumbs. So, because they are greedy, the rest of the world stays behind in a vicious circle in which their resources get better while I can't even get someone to clean the grit in our scopes optics. He worries about his career as if this discovery jeapordizes it - well who speaks for us? I have to say, I think Ortiz wins the dedicating my career argument hands down. It is an insensitive argument on the part of Mike Brown. But that still doesn't make Ortiz right to do what he did. The real question is the ethics of alledgedly using clues from totally publically available but intentionally coded information by a group flagrantly flaunting their work on the internet and to peek the interest of fellow astronomers, as is perfectly legitimate and done by many, but still withholding it - a group with vast resources where the resources are so much greener on the other side of the fence or pond. And not giving them credit for sticking their foot in their mouth and being spoofed. This inequity is what rubbed Ortiz' group the wrong way, I'm betting. When NASA, or the Japanese, or Europeans photograph new features in the Solar system, they release something to keep everyone busy quickly, although plenty of team scientists would probably like more time. That sets a different standard and expectation and creates a different basis to judge ethics. And in questions of national pride, much has been acquired by sleuthing around and little credit has been awarded nor demanded. Now, in meteoritics, suppose one of the top hunters/traders starts mapping out a strewn field and emptying it of everything quietly, and plans on waiting at least two years before submitting it, although they just can't resist saying I have a new achondrite like nothing previously seen. But suppose also that the person's guide publishes on the web all of the locations of the expeditions. Then suppose someone with a Sterling reputation comes along working the thankless job in that area, and puts two and two together as well, and figures out the same location that the other is vacuuming up everything with their meteorite
[meteorite-list] Asteroids Caused the Early Inner Solar System Cataclysm
ASTEROIDS CAUSED THE EARLY INNER SOLAR SYSTEM CATACLYSM From Lori Stiles, University Communications, UA, 520-621-1877 September 15, 2005 - Contact information listed at end of news release -- University of Arizona and Japanese scientists are convinced that evidence at last settles decades-long arguments about what objects bombarded the early inner solar system in a cataclysm 3.9 billion years ago. Ancient main belt asteroids identical in size to present-day asteroids in the Mars-Jupiter belt -- not comets -- hammered the inner rocky planets in a unique catastrophe that lasted for a blink of geologic time, anywhere from 20 million to 150 million years, they report in the Sept. 16 issue of Science. However, the objects that have been battering our inner solar system after the so-called Late Heavy Bombardment ended are a distinctly different population, UA Professor Emeritus Robert Strom and colleagues report in the article, The Origin of Planetary Impactors in the Inner Solar System. After the Late Heavy Bombardment or Lunar Cataclysm period ended, mostly near-Earth asteroids (NEAs) have peppered the terrestrial region. Strom has been studying the size and distribution of craters across solar system surfaces for the past 35 years. He has long suspected that two different projectile populations have been responsible for cratering inner solar system surfaces. But there's been too little data to prove it. Until now. Now asteroid surveys conducted by UA's Spacewatch, the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, Japan's Subaru telescope and the like have amassed fairly complete data on asteroids down to those with diameters of less than a kilometer. Suddenly it has become possible to compare the sizes of asteroids with the sizes of projectiles that blasted craters into surfaces from Mars inward to Mercury. When we derived the projectile sizes from the cratering record using scaling laws, the ancient and more recent projectile sizes matched the ancient and younger asteroid populations smack on, Strom said. It's an astonishing fit. One thing this says is that the present-day size-distribution of asteroids in the asteroid belt was established at least as far back as 4 billion years ago, UA planetary scientist Renu Malhotra, a co-author of the Science paper, said. Another thing it says is that the mechanism that caused the Late Heavy Bombardment was a gravitational event that swept objects out of the asteroid belt regardless of size. Malhotra discovered in previous research what this mechanism must have been. Near the end of their formation, Jupiter and the other outer gas giant planets swept up planetary debris farther out in the solar system, the Kuiper Belt region. In clearing up dust and pieces leftover from outer solar system planet formation, Jupiter, especially, lost orbital energy and moved inward closer to the sun. That migration greatly enhanced Jupiter's gravitational influence on the asteroid belt, flinging asteroids irrespective of size toward the inner solar system. Evidence that main belt asteroids pummeled the early inner solar system confirms a previously published cosmochemical analysis by UA planetary scientist David A. Kring and colleagues. The size distribution of impact craters in the ancient highlands of the moon and Mars is a completely independent test of the inner solar system cataclysm and confirms our cosmochemical evidence of an asteroid source, Kring, a co-author of the Science paper, said. Kring was part of a team that earlier used an argon-argon dating technique in analyzing impact melt ages of lunar meteorites -- rocks ejected at random from the moon's surface and that landed on Earth after a million or so years in space. They found from the ages of the clasts, or melted rock fragments, in the breccia meteorites that all of the moon was bombarded 3.9 billion years ago, a true global lunar cataclysm. The Apollo lunar sample analysis said that asteroids account for at least 80 percent of lunar impacts. Comets have played a relatively minor role in inner solar system impacts, Strom, Malhotra and Kring also conclude from their work. Contrary to popular belief, probably no more than 10 percent of Earth's water has come from comets, Strom said. After the Late Heavy Bombardment, terrestrial surfaces were so completely altered that no surface older than 3.9 billion years can be dated using the cratering record. Older rocks and minerals are found on the moon and Earth, but they are fragments of older surfaces that were broken up by impacts, the researchers said. Strom said that if Earth had oceans between 4.4 billion and 4 billion years ago, as other geological evidence suggests, those oceans must have been vaporized by the asteroid impacts during the cataclysm. Kring also has developed a hypothesis that suggests that the impact events during Late Heavy Bombardment generated vast subsurface hydrothermal
[meteorite-list] Kingston, Jamaica - a meteorite fall and a scientific association?
Dear list, I have spent some weeks trying to locate information about a supposed meteorite fall at 11:30pm on August 10th 1862 in Kingston, Jamaica. The Kingston libraries and university have not replied to any of my e-mails. All I have is note dated 1874 saying details can be found in an article written by one Dr. Hopkins in The Proceedings of the Kingston Association XII, 1862. No search has produced information about this journal to date (Library of Congress and online Kingston University catalogues included). Does anyone know how I can verify this, if the national library and university do not answer my mails? I have access to no meteorite catalogues. Thanks in advance, Chris __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] Not because it is easier, but because it is harder?
So, getting to the moon with the technology of the 50s/60s takes less than a decade, but getting to the moon with the technology of the 2000s takes 15 years? http://space.com/news/050914_nasa_cev_update.html NASA to Unveil Plans to Send 4 Astronauts to Moon in 2018 By Brian Berger Space News Staff Writer posted: 14 September 2005 6:43 p.m. ET WASHINGTON – NASA briefed senior White House officials Wednesday on its plan to spend $100 billion and the next 12 years building the spacecraft and rockets it needs to put humans back on the Moon by 2018. The U.S. space agency now expects to roll out its lunar exploration plan to key Congressional committees on Friday and to the broader public through a news conference on Monday, Washington sources tell SPACE.com. U.S. President George W. Bush called in January 2004 for the United States to return to the Moon by 2020 as the first major step in a broader space exploration vision aimed at extending the human presence throughout the solar system. NASA has been working intensely since April on an exploration plan that entails building an 18-foot (5.5-meter) blunt body crew capsule and launchers built from major space shuttle components including the main engines, solid rocket boosters and massive external fuel tanks. That plan, called the Exploration Systems Architecture Study, was presented by NASA Administrator Mike Griffin, his space operations chief Bill Gerstenmaier and several other senior agency officials Wednesday afternoon to senior White House policy officials, including an advisor to U.S. Vice President Richard Cheney and the president’s Deputy National Security Advisor J.D. Crouch. NASA’s plan, according to briefing charts obtained by SPACE.com, envisions beginning a sustained lunar exploration campaign in 2018 by landing four astronauts on the Moon for a seven-day stay. The expedition would begin, these charts show, by launching the lunar lander and Earth departure stage (essentially a giant propulsion module) on a heavy-lift launch vehicle that would be lifted into orbit by five space shuttle main engines and a pair of five-segment shuttle solid rocket boosters. Once the Earth departure stage and lunar lander are safely in orbit, NASA would launch the Crew Exploration Vehicle capsule atop a new launcher built from a four-segment shuttle solid rocket booster and an upper stage powered by a single space shuttle main engine. The CEV would then dock with the lunar lander and Earth departure stage and begin its several day journey to the Moon. NASA’s plan envisions being able to land four-person human crews anywhere on the Moon’s surface and to eventually use the system to transport crew members to and from a lunar outpost that it would consider building on the lunar south pole, according to the charts, because of the regions elevated quantities of hydrogen and possibly water ice. One of NASA’s reasons for going back to the Moon is to demonstrate that astronauts can essentially “live off the land” by using lunar resources to produce potable water, fuel and other valuable commodities. Such capabilities are considered extremely important to human expeditions to Mars which, because of the distances involved, would be much longer missions entailing a minimum of 500 days spent on the planet’s surface. NASA’s Crew Exploration Vehicle is expected to cost $5.5 billion to develop, according to government and industry sources, and the Crew Launch Vehicle another $4.5 billion. The heavy-lift launcher, which would be capable of lofting 125 metric tons of payload, is expected to cost more than $5 billion but less than $10 billion to develop, according to these sources. NASA’s plan also calls for using the Crew Exploration Vehicle, equipped with as many as six seats, to transport astronauts to and from the international space station. An unmanned version of the Crew Exploration Vehicle could be used to deliver a limited amount of cargo to the space station. NASA would like to field the Crew Exploration Vehicle by 2011, or within a year of when it plans to fly the space shuttle for the last time. Development of the heavy lift launcher, lunar lander and Earth departure stage would begin in 2011. By that time, according to NASA’s charts, the space agency would expect to be spending $7 billion a year on its exploration efforts, a figure projected to grow to more than $15 billion a year by 2018, that date NASA has targeted for its first human lunar landing since Apollo 17 in 1972. __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] Re: NASA to Unveil Plans to Send 4 Astronauts to Moon in 2018
So, getting to the moon with the technology of the 50s/60s takes less than a decade, but getting to the moon with the technology of the 2000s takes 15 years? There's currently no 'space race' like there was in the 1950s/1960s. Also, this plan will land 4 astronauts on the lunar surface, as opposed to the Apollo's two. And they are targeting the harder-to-reach polar regions to take advantage of ice resources, where Apollo went to more easily reached equatorial regions. Ron Baalke __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Re: NASA to Unveil Plans to Send 4 Astronauts to Moon in...
Mah! I don't know Darren, it takes a heck of a lot longer to work under the hood of a car with 2000's technology than a car with 50's and 60's technology.From the sounds of it, though, the technology is from a 60's and 70's junkyard, with more airbags and increased passenger space and head room...as for there being no space race Ron, can you copy that to George and the Chinese in language each can understand and see if they agree there is no race to have Moonbase Alpha nor dark forces at work for whoever who gets caught off guard? How does NASA's Moonbase program compare in constant dollars annually to the Apollo program anyways? The jump from Mercury to Gemini, btw, didn't take 10 years! Regarding Apollo, I would say the new program is about at the equivalent of July 1966 when boosters were being tested...and by July 1969 the Eagle had landed, so 3 years is a valid number to use for comparison of then and now...for next manned Lunar touchdown... Saludos, Doug PS What does Mah! mean? PPS I happen to think that NASA's 1960's space technology was pretty good by today's standards! So, getting to the moon with the technology of the 50s/60s takes less than a decade, but getting to the moon with the technology of the 2000s takes 15 years? There's currently no 'space race' like there was in the 1950s/1960s. Also, this plan will land 4 astronauts on the lunar surface, as opposed to the Apollo's two. And they are targeting the harder-to-reach polar regions to take advantage of ice resources, where Apollo went to more easily reached equatorial regions. __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] NASA Research Finds Green Sand Crystals Are in Comet Tempel 1
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/research/exploringtheuniverse/comettemple1.html John Bluck NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Calif. Phone: 650/604-5026 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] NASA Research Finds Green Sand Crystals Are in Comet Tempel 1 September 15, 2005 Green sand found on the big island of Hawaii resembles olivine crystals in the icy interior of comet Tempel 1, according to a NASA astrophysicist. Scientists revealed that they detected green silicate crystals (olivine) in Tempel 1 similar to, but smaller than, Hawaiian green sand particles, according to articles by the researchers in the September 15, 2005 issue of the journal Science Express. They made their observations before, during and after the NASA Deep Impact spacecraft's 820-pound 'impactor' collided with the comet in early July 2005, as planned, so astronomers could determine what is in comets. The papers outline findings scientists made using infrared detectors on the Gemini and Subaru telescopes in Hawaii. The silicate crystals are talcum powder-size, but they are made of the same materials as the green sand beaches in Hawaii, said Diane Wooden, a co-author of both papers. She is an astrophysicist at NASA Ames Research Center, located in California's Silicon Valley. The principal author of the Gemini Telescope paper is David Harker, University of California, San Diego. Seiji Sugita of the University of Tokyo is the principal author of the second Subaru Telescope paper. Following the collision of the comet with the 'impactor,' there was a short-lived gas geyser associated with the impact site that carried the crystals from Tempel 1 into space, Wooden said. The Gemini and the Subaru telescopes are two of the biggest in the world, and we were able to focus in on the green dust particles in the jet and ejecta â something that most space-borne telescopes could not see in infrared light, she noted. The insides of comet Tempel 1 look very much like the outsides of comets that have not been 'cooked' by passages close to the sun, Wooden said. She explained that there might be green silicates on the surfaces of comets that swarm in the outer reaches of the solar system and are not exposed to intense sunshine. Another comet, Hale-Bopp, was so active that it released green silicate crystals as it passed close to the sun in 1997, according to Wooden. However, the Deep Impact spacecraft's 'impactor' had to blast the green silicate crystals from the interior of the comet Tempel 1 for us to see them with our ground-based instruments, she noted. Tempel 1 travels close to the sun during part of the comet's orbit, and strong sunlight hits the comet, causing its surface gases and other particles to fly off into space. These particles are what make up a comet's tail, which forms nearer the sun. In Tempel 1's case, it has passed near the sun so many times that it has lost much of its surface gases and particles, said Wooden. What's incredible to me is that the surface -- or maybe the fluffiness of the body of Tempel 1 -- is protecting the primitive particles and gases just below the surface from being out-gassed, ventured Wooden. We discovered crystalline silicates in the dust that flew from the comet after its collision with the Deep Impact 'impactor.' We don't usually see these silicates in comets that have been 'cooked' by the sun, Wooden explained. Digital images of olivine particles from a green sand beach in Hawaii and other images related to this story can be found at: http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/multimedia/images/2005/olivine.html A movie is available on-line that shows the collision of the comet with Deep Impact's projectile: http://www.nasa.gov/mov/121527main_MRI_impact.mov __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] Mauna Kea's Giant Eyes Reunite Comet Families
http://www.gemini.edu/index.php?option=contenttask=viewid=154 Mauna Kea's Giant Eyes Reunite Comet Families Thursday, 15 September 2005 Joint W.M. Keck, Subaru and Gemini Observatories Press Release Science Contacts: * David Harker University of Caliifornia, San Diego (858) 822-4893 [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Seiji Sugita University of Tokyo +81-4-7136-5520 [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Fred Chaffee W.M. Keck Observatory (808) 885-7887 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Media Contact: * Peter Michaud Gemini Observatory, Hilo HI (808) 974-2510 (Office) (808) 937-0845 (Cell) [EMAIL PROTECTED] When NASA's Deep Impact mission ploughed into comet 9P/Tempel 1 on July 4th of this year, the giant telescopes on Mauna Kea had a unique view of the massive cloud of dust, gas and ice expelled during the collision. See previous Gemini release on observations here. http://www.gemini.edu/index.php?option=contenttask=viewid=139 A series of coordinated observations, made under ideal conditions by the world's largest collection of big telescopes, delivered surprising new insights into the ancestry and life cycles of comets. Specifically, materials beneath the comet's dusty skin reveal striking similarities between two families of comets where no relationship had been suspected. The observations also allowed scientists to determine the mass of material blasted out by the collision, which is estimated to be as much as 25 fully-loaded tractor-trailer trucks. The findings are based on the composition of rocky dust detected by both the Subaru and Gemini 8-meter telescopes, and ethane, water and carbon-based organic compounds revealed by the 10-meter W.M. Keck Observatory. The results from these Mauna Kea observations were made available in the September 16, 2005 issue of the journal Science highlighting results from the Deep Impact experiment. Comet Tempel 1 was selected for the Deep Impact experiment because it circles the Sun in a stable orbit that allows its surface to be gently baked with solar radiation. As a result, the comet has an old, weathered protective layer of dust that covers the icy material beneath - much like a snowbank builds up dirt on its surface as it melts in the springtime sunlight. The Deep Impact mission was designed to dig deep beneath this crusty exterior to learn more about the true nature of the comet's underlying dust and ice components. This comet definitely had something to hide under its veneer of rock and ice and we were ready with the world's biggest telescopes to find out what it was, said Chick Woodward of the University of Minnesota and part of the Gemini observing team. The combined observations show a complex mix of silicates, water and organic compounds beneath the surface of the comet. These materials are similar to what is seen in another class of comets thought to reside in a distant swarm of pristine bodies called the Oort Cloud. Oort Cloud comets are well preserved fossils in the frozen suburbs of the solar system that have changed little over the billions of years since their formation. When they are occasionally nudged gravitationally toward the Sun they warm up and release a profuse amount of gas and dust on a one-time visit to the inner solar system. Returning comets like Tempel 1 (known as periodic comets) were believed to have formed in a colder nursery distinctly different from the birthplaces of their Oort Cloud cousins. The evidence for two distinct family trees lies in their vastly different orbits and apparent composition. Now we see that the difference may really be just superficial: only skin deep, said Woodward. Under the surface, these comets may not be so different after all. This similarity indicates that both types of comets might have shared a birthplace in a region of the forming solar system where temperatures were warm enough to produce the materials observed. It is now likely that these bodies formed between the orbits of Jupiter and Neptune in a common nursery, said Seiji Sugita of the University of Tokyo and Subaru team member. Another question that the Mauna Kea telescopes were able to address is the amount of mass ejected when the comet was impacted by the chunk of copper about the mass of a grand piano from the Deep Impact spacecraft, Sugita commented. At the time of impact, the spacecraft was traveling at about 23,000 miles per hour or nearly 37,000 kilometers per hour. Because the spacecraft was unable to study the size of the crater created after it was formed, the high-resolution Mauna Kea observations provided the necessary data to get a firm estimate of the mass ejection which was about 1000 tons. To release this amout of material, the comet must have a fairly soft consistency, Sugita said. The splash from NASA's impact probe freed these materials and we were in the right place to capture them with the biggest telescopes on Earth, said W.M. Keck Director Fred
[meteorite-list] RE: ZAGAMI SLICE-GOOD PRICE
Ok, looks like $450/g wasn't a reasonable enough price, so please make an offer folks. It's gotta go... regardless. I'm in the mood for handing out a good deal this evening, so give me a shout with your ideal price. (Zagami 1.10g) Kind Regards, Ryan -Original Message- From: RYAN PAWELSKI [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sep 13, 2005 3:41 PM To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Subject: [meteorite-list] AD: ZAGAMI SLICE-GOOD PRICE Good Afternoon List.. Short and sweet. I think Zagami is so awesome that I would like to sell (quickly) my 1.1g part-slice to purchase a larger one. The piece for sale is a thicker part-slice/fragment with five faces, three of which are polished. This is a very nice piece that icludes all of the cool characteristic features of Zagami (would be great for experiments, research). All I am asking is $495 for this piece (purchased @ $500/g) USPS priority mail shipping will be an additional $3.85 As always, first one to hollar gets it, and Paypal is accepted. If anyone would like to see this piece, I would be more than willing at an attempt to take a photo, although I am not the best at taking good snap-shots of small specimens. Kind Regards, Ryan __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] Meteorite versus tractor?
Does anyone have additional news or confirmation that this was a meteorite? http://six.pairlist.net/pipermail/meteorite-list/2005-July/176439.html Thanks, Ken IMCA# 9632 __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
