Here is how Rubin and Grossman (2010) [MAPS 45, 114-122] dealt with this:
Another difficult situation arises when considering projectiles that
strike a spacecraft. For example, publications reporting on the Long
Duration Exposure Facility (LDEF), which was exposed to interplanetary
space in low Earth orbit for 5.75 years, generally used the term
meteoroid (not meteorite) to describe both the small impactors and the
resulting particulate debris that was collected (e.g., Clark 1984).
However, as pointed out by Beech and Youngblood (1994), according to
existing definitions, meteoroids are defined as objects moving in
interplanetary space and meteorites are defined as objects that have
reached Earth. Neither definition seems to apply to material that has
struck a spacecraft: that material is no longer in interplanetary
space as an independent body, nor has it reached Earth or any other
celestial body. One could quibble over whether a platform in orbit
around the Earth is simply an extension of Earth’s surface, but it is
also easy to imagine a situation where an object hits a spacecraft in
orbit around the Sun or traveling with sufficient velocity to escape
the solar system altogether. Beech and Youngblood (1994) indicated
that either a new definition is needed for the term meteorite or a new
term needs to be created to cover material that hits a spacecraft.
The essential characteristic of a meteorite is that it represents
material that comes from one place and survives an accretionary impact
someplace else. In addition, the essential characteristic of a
meteoroid is its independent existence as a solid object in
interplanetary space. The most straightforward way to retain these
characteristics is to allow the definition of meteorite to cover
material that accretes to man-made objects. Returning to the LDEF
example, we would prefer to say that meteoroids impacted the facility
and that some of this material survived as small meteorites...
Jeff
On 8/20/2012 11:02 AM, Chris Peterson wrote:
They might reasonably call it an anti-meteoroid shelter, but the fact
is, "meteorite" is not well enough defined to say that once a
meteoroid impacts an object in space, it can't be called a meteorite.
I don't have a problem with the usage in the article. Meteoroid and
meteorite are reasonably interchangeable in this context; the good
thing is that they didn't call it an anti-meteor shelter.
Chris
*******************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
On 8/20/2012 8:54 AM, Pete Pete wrote:
Hi, all,
I don't recall this being discussed here before and hopefully I'm not
being too anal, but is the definition of "meteorite" evolving, or is
it being used improperly here (and frequently in the past when
referring to the ISS and these shields).
Cheers,
Pete
http://rbth.ru/articles/2012/08/20/russian_cosmonauts_to_install_anti-meteorite_shelter_on_iss_17508.html
http://rbth.ru/articles/2012/08/20/russian_cosmonauts_to_install_anti-meteorite_shelter_on_iss_17508.html
Russian cosmonauts to install anti-meteorite shelter on ISS
______________________________________________
Visit the Archives at
http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html
Meteorite-list mailing list
[email protected]
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
______________________________________________
Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html
Meteorite-list mailing list
[email protected]
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
