How could this dust be in better condition than Stardust samples when only a third of it might have been contributed by a comet? How can they be sure this material came from a comet? With Stardust you know with 100% certainty where it came from plus there is no terrestrial contamination.
Check out this exact quote from the article: "When they melted the snow and filtered out anything more than 25 micrometres across, almost a third of the particles they found were from space." The whole thing stinks of posturing to me! Adam ----- Original Message ----- From: "Darren Garrison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 12:21 PM Subject: [meteorite-list] Antarctic comet dust "perhaps" in better conditionthan Stardust Anyone have access to the full article? http://www.newscientistspace.com/article/mg19125594.100.html ______________________________________________ Meteorite-list mailing list [email protected] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list ______________________________________________ Meteorite-list mailing list [email protected] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
