[meteorite-list] Unusual new lunar or hokum?
Hi Group! I ran across this one on eBay today : http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=350119620351 Something about it doesn't ring true. There is a lot of quasi-scientific mumbo jumbo in the listing. Is this for real or some highly-misinformed individual? Regards, MikeG . Michael Gilmer (Louisiana, USA) Member of the Meteoritical Society. Member of the Bayou Region Stargazers Network. Websites - http://www.galactic-stone.com and http://www.glassthrower.com MySpace - http://www.myspace.com/fine_meteorites_4_sale .. __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] Ad - eBay auctions ending soon.
Greetings all I have a few auctions closing shortly including Martian shergotite individuals currently less than $60/gm Allende 18 gram piece with large CAI at $3.65/gm Covert 29 grams with nice veining $1/gm Camel donga currently at $2/gm CR2 Dhofar 1432 at $0.50/gm very large 27 gram henbury impactite at less than 10 cents per gram. Last piece sold at $10/gm See them all and others at http://members.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewUserPageuserid=katy2kary -- Eric Olson 610 W. Moore Rd Tucson AZ 85755 http://www.star-bits.com __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Unusual new lunar or hokum?
Hi Mike - I concur, the whole picture looks strange to me. A 5 ton lunar meteorite in one piece? Where were the O2 analyses done? There are only a few trustworthy labs that can do O2 analyses. In any case, I don't think the reported O2 data are that discriminating between lunar and terrestrial. Some of the mineralogy looks OK, some does not. The plotted major oxide compositional data look impressive for lunar origin, but there are terrestrial mafic compositions that are just as lunar-looking. The hand sample surface is very irregular and looks more like a weathered terrestrial surface than fusion crust. Looks like a duck, walks like a duck, but it doesn't quack like a duck. My advice is to wait until it has been officially classified and/or Randy Korotev has looked it over before buying a piece. I also suggest that the Starchaser group do FeO/MnO ratios on olivine and pyroxene. These ratios are discriminating and can save everyone a lot of trouble. My guess is that this lunar is a glacial erratic from Canada. Buyer beware, Ted Bunch On 11/3/08 7:06 AM, Michael Gilmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Group! I ran across this one on eBay today : http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=350119620351 Something about it doesn't ring true. There is a lot of quasi-scientific mumbo jumbo in the listing. Is this for real or some highly-misinformed individual? Regards, MikeG . Michael Gilmer (Louisiana, USA) Member of the Meteoritical Society. Member of the Bayou Region Stargazers Network. Websites - http://www.galactic-stone.com and http://www.glassthrower.com MySpace - http://www.myspace.com/fine_meteorites_4_sale .. __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Unusual new lunar or hokum?
doesn´t this lunar have a name, with all this classification done??? Stefan the lunatic Hi Group! I ran across this one on eBay today : http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=350119620351 Something about it doesn't ring true. There is a lot of quasi-scientific mumbo jumbo in the listing. Is this for real or some highly-misinformed individual? Regards, MikeG . Michael Gilmer (Louisiana, USA) Member of the Meteoritical Society. Member of the Bayou Region Stargazers Network. Websites - http://www.galactic-stone.com and http://www.glassthrower.com MySpace - http://www.myspace.com/fine_meteorites_4_sale .. __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Unusual new lunar or hokum?
On Mon, 03 Nov 2008 09:06:36 -0700, you wrote: Looks like a duck, walks like a duck, but it doesn't quack like a duck. A rule of thumb I have for anything is-- if it writes like a duck, it probably should be avoided. And that auction description is written as a duck had wrote it-- meaning that the quality of the writing looks like a migratory waterfowl has been pecking at a keyboard. Anyone who is a native English speaker that composes English text that badly has to have something wrong with them, and should be treated with extreme suspicion. Plus, this: http://meteorite-identification.com/ebay/minor.html __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Unusual new lunar or hokum?
Yes - it has a name - Asphalt 001. Mitch is back... same old charts, different rocks. 1.) Found by Starchasers Meteorites August 2005, ILLinois USA 2.) Classified by Starchasers Meteorite Curator Mitchell R. Minor 3.) Starchasers Meteorites is the Sole supplier for this Illinois USA Lunar Breccia Olivine Gabbro Mixed Mingled Mare Basalt 4.) Comes with Certificate Of Authenticity from Starchasers Meteorite Collection, and comes with LIFETIME AUTHENTICITY GUARANTEE. We guarantee all meteorites we sell are authentic, and we offer a 30 day money back satisfaction guarantee minus shipping cost (minus shipping cost? Shipping is free!) With a main mass of 11,150 lbs. Mitch will be setup for life if he can just find someone to buy it. Though, shipping is free and it comes with one of Ron's membrane boxes :) - therefore it must be a lunar YOU DON'T NEED A MICROSCOPE TO ENJOY THIS BEAUTY! (but you do need some form of head trauma) - Original Message - From: Stefan Brandes [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 10:50 AM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Unusual new lunar or hokum? doesn´t this lunar have a name, with all this classification done??? Stefan the lunatic Hi Group! I ran across this one on eBay today : http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=350119620351 Something about it doesn't ring true. There is a lot of quasi-scientific mumbo jumbo in the listing. Is this for real or some highly-misinformed individual? Regards, MikeG . Michael Gilmer (Louisiana, USA) Member of the Meteoritical Society. Member of the Bayou Region Stargazers Network. Websites - http://www.galactic-stone.com and http://www.glassthrower.com MySpace - http://www.myspace.com/fine_meteorites_4_sale .. __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Unusual new lunar or hokum?
I recieved a sample of his Lunar for me to have tested - I told him I would buy it after I had it tested it IS NOT LUNAR. I even forwarded my test results to ebay who keeps allowing the clown to list it. Ebay is downright dirty and is boardering of contributing to fraud and this guys scam. This guy is a liar, ebay knows it and has done nothing about it. --- On Mon, 11/3/08, Michael Gilmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Michael Gilmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [meteorite-list] Unusual new lunar or hokum? To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Date: Monday, November 3, 2008, 9:06 AM Hi Group! I ran across this one on eBay today : http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=350119620351 Something about it doesn't ring true. There is a lot of quasi-scientific mumbo jumbo in the listing. Is this for real or some highly-misinformed individual? Regards, MikeG . Michael Gilmer (Louisiana, USA) Member of the Meteoritical Society. Member of the Bayou Region Stargazers Network. Websites - http://www.galactic-stone.com and http://www.glassthrower.com MySpace - http://www.myspace.com/fine_meteorites_4_sale .. __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Unusual new lunar or hokum?
Hi All This guy has been mentioned several times on the list and is a well known scam artist. In fact he is so well know Randy Korotev has give him his own page; http://meteorites.wustl.edu/meteorwrongs/m239.htm It is too bad some one possibly bought a piece of his garbage; http://cgi.ebay.com/LUNAR-METEORITE-OLIVINE-GABBRO-64-4-GRAM-SLICE-NICE_W0QQitemZ350001108996 Hard to be sure though as the sellers ID is kept secret. How about this auction of his. Is it an Imilac? http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=350114894419 BTW I am going to block him from bidding on any of my Ebay auctions. Mike Mike Jensen Meteorites 16730 E Ada PL Aurora, CO 80017-3137 USA 720-949-6220 IMCA 4264 website: www.jensenmeteorites.com On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 9:14 AM, Jason Utas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hola, This fellow's been selling complete crap for the past year or so. Terrestrial slag as a new plessitic octahedrite, Campo del Cielo's as Canyon Diablo's (a difference of $200-250/kg in value), and bits of terrestrial metamorphic/igneous crap (see the link) as lunar material. He's repeatedly shrugged off demands for real classifications, never mind his blatant selling of false and renamed material. There are people who make honest mistakes and there are cheaters. This one's about as sleazy as they get. Regards, Jason On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 7:50 AM, Stefan Brandes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: doesn´t this lunar have a name, with all this classification done??? Stefan the lunatic Hi Group! I ran across this one on eBay today : http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=350119620351 Something about it doesn't ring true. There is a lot of quasi-scientific mumbo jumbo in the listing. Is this for real or some highly-misinformed individual? Regards, MikeG . Michael Gilmer (Louisiana, USA) Member of the Meteoritical Society. Member of the Bayou Region Stargazers Network. Websites - http://www.galactic-stone.com and http://www.glassthrower.com MySpace - http://www.myspace.com/fine_meteorites_4_sale .. __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Unusual new lunar or hokum?
Hola, This fellow's been selling complete crap for the past year or so. Terrestrial slag as a new plessitic octahedrite, Campo del Cielo's as Canyon Diablo's (a difference of $200-250/kg in value), and bits of terrestrial metamorphic/igneous crap (see the link) as lunar material. He's repeatedly shrugged off demands for real classifications, never mind his blatant selling of false and renamed material. There are people who make honest mistakes and there are cheaters. This one's about as sleazy as they get. Regards, Jason On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 7:50 AM, Stefan Brandes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: doesn´t this lunar have a name, with all this classification done??? Stefan the lunatic Hi Group! I ran across this one on eBay today : http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=350119620351 Something about it doesn't ring true. There is a lot of quasi-scientific mumbo jumbo in the listing. Is this for real or some highly-misinformed individual? Regards, MikeG . Michael Gilmer (Louisiana, USA) Member of the Meteoritical Society. Member of the Bayou Region Stargazers Network. Websites - http://www.galactic-stone.com and http://www.glassthrower.com MySpace - http://www.myspace.com/fine_meteorites_4_sale .. __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] advise needed on classification
I have come across some very interesting material I would like to get formally classified. can anyone point me in the right direction for doing this? I have had testing done on it and so far, it seems to be an LL3 with mesosiderite inclusions. How would I go about submitting it? Images of the material from testing can bee seen here: http://www.hostingphpbb.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=115mforum=wwwmeteoritesto Thanks, Greg __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] cleaning Millbillillie ?
Yes. So might msg, tsp, Dmso, and white vinegar. depending on a lot of conditions. Anything with HCL or flourine should be avoided, as well as Sulfuric acid. Steve P.S. But Don't clean them! they are like coins! --- On Sun, 11/2/08, mckinney trammell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: mckinney trammell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] cleaning Millbillillie ? To: Alexander Seidel [EMAIL PROTECTED], meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED], tett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sunday, November 2, 2008, 7:14 PM would oxaclic acid work like is does when removing red clay stains form quartz crystals? --- On Sun, 11/2/08, tett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: tett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] cleaning Millbillillie ? To: Alexander Seidel [EMAIL PROTECTED], meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sunday, November 2, 2008, 5:10 PM I now have a much deeper appreciation for Millbillillie. I will not attempt cleaning and will reflect on the subtle beauty these meteorites have. Many Thanks! Mike - Original Message - From: Alexander Seidel [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: tett [EMAIL PROTECTED]; meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2008 11:24 AM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] cleaning Millbillillie ? I agree that there is a special characteristic that would be lost if the red staining were to be removed from a Millbillillie individual. However, it is also great to have meteorites pristine with no terrestrial alteration. The priciest Millbillillies are those that with dark black glassy crusts. No, a meteorite like Millbillillie should be looked at in a much more subtle way! It fell in 1960, and was collected no earlier than 10 years later! Talking about Millbillillie is exciting in many respects, as it e. g. displays different textures on cut slices, but talking about exterior surface, I would always prefer a piece with natural (laterite) patina over a piece which was somehow cleaned (..if this were possible..) or has only got some more or less glossy black crust alone rather than the brownish-reddish surface stains that are so very *typical* for this meteorite, and are part of its character, so to say...! You are right insofar as, when we are talking about may be fresh Eucrites or fresh Howardites, we are looking and longing for fresh glossy black crust in the first place, as will be the case with e. g. the early collected pieces of a historical fall like Stannern, or some rare other finds and falls, but things are a quite a bit different with a fall like Millbillillie, even if it occured as late as 1960, considered a fresh fall Well, nothing but my two (Euro-)Cents, Alex Berlin/Germany __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] cleaning Millbillillie ?
Removing staining may give a meteorite a better visual appearance, but like with a valuable coin will remove valuable information. like age , original chemistry and possibly fusion crust. If you had a proof silver dollar from 1860 would you soak it in oxalic acid to make it look better? Have a great day! Steve Dunklee --- On Mon, 11/3/08, Steve Dunklee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Steve Dunklee [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] cleaning Millbillillie ? To: Alexander Seidel [EMAIL PROTECTED], meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED], tett [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Monday, November 3, 2008, 11:19 AM Yes. So might msg, tsp, Dmso, and white vinegar. depending on a lot of conditions. Anything with HCL or flourine should be avoided, as well as Sulfuric acid. Steve P.S. But Don't clean them! they are like coins! --- On Sun, 11/2/08, mckinney trammell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: mckinney trammell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] cleaning Millbillillie ? To: Alexander Seidel [EMAIL PROTECTED], meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED], tett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sunday, November 2, 2008, 7:14 PM would oxaclic acid work like is does when removing red clay stains form quartz crystals? --- On Sun, 11/2/08, tett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: tett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] cleaning Millbillillie ? To: Alexander Seidel [EMAIL PROTECTED], meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sunday, November 2, 2008, 5:10 PM I now have a much deeper appreciation for Millbillillie. I will not attempt cleaning and will reflect on the subtle beauty these meteorites have. Many Thanks! Mike - Original Message - From: Alexander Seidel [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: tett [EMAIL PROTECTED]; meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2008 11:24 AM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] cleaning Millbillillie ? I agree that there is a special characteristic that would be lost if the red staining were to be removed from a Millbillillie individual. However, it is also great to have meteorites pristine with no terrestrial alteration. The priciest Millbillillies are those that with dark black glassy crusts. No, a meteorite like Millbillillie should be looked at in a much more subtle way! It fell in 1960, and was collected no earlier than 10 years later! Talking about Millbillillie is exciting in many respects, as it e. g. displays different textures on cut slices, but talking about exterior surface, I would always prefer a piece with natural (laterite) patina over a piece which was somehow cleaned (..if this were possible..) or has only got some more or less glossy black crust alone rather than the brownish-reddish surface stains that are so very *typical* for this meteorite, and are part of its character, so to say...! You are right insofar as, when we are talking about may be fresh Eucrites or fresh Howardites, we are looking and longing for fresh glossy black crust in the first place, as will be the case with e. g. the early collected pieces of a historical fall like Stannern, or some rare other finds and falls, but things are a quite a bit different with a fall like Millbillillie, even if it occured as late as 1960, considered a fresh fall Well, nothing but my two (Euro-)Cents, Alex Berlin/Germany __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Cleaning Millbillillie (AD)
..Or you can just purchase one that doesn't require any cleaning ; ) I have a lovely 212g individual complete with regmaglyps, glossy black fusion crust, and just enough staining, which adds to it's aesthetic qualities. $3180, OBO. Looking to make a quick sale on this one. Please email for photos if interested. Paypal accepted for those who wish to go that route. Thanks for looking folks! Cheers, Ryan Pawelski __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Cleaning Millbillillie (AD)
just bought millb. on ebay for $5/g (red clay inc.). --- On Mon, 11/3/08, RJP [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: RJP [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Cleaning Millbillillie (AD) To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Date: Monday, November 3, 2008, 1:31 PM ..Or you can just purchase one that doesn't require any cleaning ; ) I have a lovely 212g individual complete with regmaglyps, glossy black fusion crust, and just enough staining, which adds to it's aesthetic qualities. $3180, OBO. Looking to make a quick sale on this one. Please email for photos if interested. Paypal accepted for those who wish to go that route. Thanks for looking folks! Cheers, Ryan Pawelski __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA
The junk was a tank full of ammonia coolant on the international space station that was no longer needed. Astronaut Clayton Anderson threw it overboard during a spacewalk in July 2007. Space station program manager Mike Suffredini said Monday that the debris splashed down somewhere between Australia and New Zealand Sunday night Am I alone in the idea that Nasa should be held criminaly liable for the polution of our waters? If an ordinary person was to dump toxic material into the ocean, surely we would be in alot of trouble... just becouse they are Nasa does not make them above the law. Ammonia is highly toxic to marine life! It is my opinion that this was an outright disrespect to the enviorment and a potential hazard to the marine life in the area of impact. I am very upset about this and feel Nasa was totally wrong for the actions they have done. This could have been handled in a much better fashion, and I for one would like to see Nasa held accountable for this. I am really upset about this whole situtation. surely if it had fallen on someones propery NASA would be in alot of trouble... Shame on you NASA. Shame on you Clayton Anderson. __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Cleaning Millbillillie (AD)
Yeah.. I'm sure you did. Was it a broken weathered fragment or just a chunk of red clay? And I don't appreciate you responding to my AD through the list. Everyone knows that you obviously purchased a far lesser grade of meteorite than the one I have to offer. $5 per gram? C'mon now. Honestly. Ryan __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA
I wouldn't mind if it landed on my property - right onto Ebay! Cheers, Pete Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 10:41:27 -0800 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Subject: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA The junk was a tank full of ammonia coolant on the international space station that was no longer needed. Astronaut Clayton Anderson threw it overboard during a spacewalk in July 2007. Space station program manager Mike Suffredini said Monday that the debris splashed down somewhere between Australia and New Zealand Sunday night Am I alone in the idea that Nasa should be held criminaly liable for the polution of our waters? If an ordinary person was to dump toxic material into the ocean, surely we would be in alot of trouble... just becouse they are Nasa does not make them above the law. Ammonia is highly toxic to marine life! It is my opinion that this was an outright disrespect to the enviorment and a potential hazard to the marine life in the area of impact. I am very upset about this and feel Nasa was totally wrong for the actions they have done. This could have been handled in a much better fashion, and I for one would like to see Nasa held accountable for this. I am really upset about this whole situtation. surely if it had fallen on someones propery NASA would be in alot of trouble... Shame on you NASA. Shame on you Clayton Anderson. __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list _ __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA
Hi Greg- It is inaccurate to say that this object splashed down. In fact, much of it burned away during reentry, leaving much smaller debris. It would seem extremely unlikely that any ammonia was left by the time pieces hit the water. So there was only a bit of scrap metal, probably nothing of significant toxicity. The impact of this debris on the ocean ecology is likely to be near zero. Returning junk from low earth orbit is not currently practical in most cases. The only option is to allow it to reenter and (mostly) burn up. I suspect that the sum total of all the debris from space that has reached the ground doesn't add up to one scuttled destroyer (with far more toxics in the latter case as well). And ships are scuttled all the time, along with thousands every year that are simply lost at sea. Chris * Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com - Original Message - From: Greg Catterton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 11:41 AM Subject: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA The junk was a tank full of ammonia coolant on the international space station that was no longer needed. Astronaut Clayton Anderson threw it overboard during a spacewalk in July 2007. Space station program manager Mike Suffredini said Monday that the debris splashed down somewhere between Australia and New Zealand Sunday night Am I alone in the idea that Nasa should be held criminaly liable for the polution of our waters? If an ordinary person was to dump toxic material into the ocean, surely we would be in alot of trouble... just becouse they are Nasa does not make them above the law. Ammonia is highly toxic to marine life! It is my opinion that this was an outright disrespect to the enviorment and a potential hazard to the marine life in the area of impact. I am very upset about this and feel Nasa was totally wrong for the actions they have done. This could have been handled in a much better fashion, and I for one would like to see Nasa held accountable for this. I am really upset about this whole situtation. surely if it had fallen on someones propery NASA would be in alot of trouble... Shame on you NASA. Shame on you Clayton Anderson. __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA
Actually, fish and marine life have a better chance of dying from getting hit on the head with stainless steel debris than the ammonia coolant. The coolant was vaporized during re-entry. Besides, I rather toss the tank into decay (with the flick of a finger!) than spend 10 million bringing it back via the space shuttle. Mike Bandli -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Greg Catterton Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 10:41 AM To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Subject: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA The junk was a tank full of ammonia coolant on the international space station that was no longer needed. Astronaut Clayton Anderson threw it overboard during a spacewalk in July 2007. Space station program manager Mike Suffredini said Monday that the debris splashed down somewhere between Australia and New Zealand Sunday night Am I alone in the idea that Nasa should be held criminaly liable for the polution of our waters? If an ordinary person was to dump toxic material into the ocean, surely we would be in alot of trouble... just becouse they are Nasa does not make them above the law. Ammonia is highly toxic to marine life! It is my opinion that this was an outright disrespect to the enviorment and a potential hazard to the marine life in the area of impact. I am very upset about this and feel Nasa was totally wrong for the actions they have done. This could have been handled in a much better fashion, and I for one would like to see Nasa held accountable for this. I am really upset about this whole situtation. surely if it had fallen on someones propery NASA would be in alot of trouble... Shame on you NASA. Shame on you Clayton Anderson. __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA
If that is the case, why was such a big deal made about not going anywhere near the debris if it had impacted on land becouse of toxic hazards? I agree about the scuttled destroyer, but at the same time, I dont think that is right to do also. Perhaps the toxic nature that has been reported has mislead me to think that it was more of a big deal then it is, but it is troubling to think that this was the best thing they could come up with. Surely it could have been returned to earth on a shuttle and disposed of properly. --- On Mon, 11/3/08, Chris Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Chris Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Date: Monday, November 3, 2008, 1:57 PM Hi Greg- It is inaccurate to say that this object splashed down. In fact, much of it burned away during reentry, leaving much smaller debris. It would seem extremely unlikely that any ammonia was left by the time pieces hit the water. So there was only a bit of scrap metal, probably nothing of significant toxicity. The impact of this debris on the ocean ecology is likely to be near zero. Returning junk from low earth orbit is not currently practical in most cases. The only option is to allow it to reenter and (mostly) burn up. I suspect that the sum total of all the debris from space that has reached the ground doesn't add up to one scuttled destroyer (with far more toxics in the latter case as well). And ships are scuttled all the time, along with thousands every year that are simply lost at sea. Chris * Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com - Original Message - From: Greg Catterton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 11:41 AM Subject: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA The junk was a tank full of ammonia coolant on the international space station that was no longer needed. Astronaut Clayton Anderson threw it overboard during a spacewalk in July 2007. Space station program manager Mike Suffredini said Monday that the debris splashed down somewhere between Australia and New Zealand Sunday night Am I alone in the idea that Nasa should be held criminaly liable for the polution of our waters? If an ordinary person was to dump toxic material into the ocean, surely we would be in alot of trouble... just becouse they are Nasa does not make them above the law. Ammonia is highly toxic to marine life! It is my opinion that this was an outright disrespect to the enviorment and a potential hazard to the marine life in the area of impact. I am very upset about this and feel Nasa was totally wrong for the actions they have done. This could have been handled in a much better fashion, and I for one would like to see Nasa held accountable for this. I am really upset about this whole situtation. surely if it had fallen on someones propery NASA would be in alot of trouble... Shame on you NASA. Shame on you Clayton Anderson. __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA
On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 10:41:27 -0800 (PST), you wrote: Ammonia is highly toxic to marine life! Yep, ammonia isn't good for fish. Which is why they are constantly dumping it out of their bodies-- into the water. If some of the ammonia happened to make it to the surface of the ocean, for a few minutes a small area would have a slightly higher concentration, which would quickly diffuse into the general fish-pee background. (Hint-- the ocean is kind of a big place). __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA
I don't think the taxpayers would be to happy to hear NASA spent millions of dollars to remove a piece of space junk. Letting it enter back into the atmoshphere is the safe and cheapest way to go. Of course we could just let it stay up there and add to the many pieces of space junk already floating around putting astronauts lives in danger. Del --- On Mon, 11/3/08, Greg Catterton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Greg Catterton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Date: Monday, November 3, 2008, 11:06 AM If that is the case, why was such a big deal made about not going anywhere near the debris if it had impacted on land becouse of toxic hazards? I agree about the scuttled destroyer, but at the same time, I dont think that is right to do also. Perhaps the toxic nature that has been reported has mislead me to think that it was more of a big deal then it is, but it is troubling to think that this was the best thing they could come up with. Surely it could have been returned to earth on a shuttle and disposed of properly. --- On Mon, 11/3/08, Chris Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Chris Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Date: Monday, November 3, 2008, 1:57 PM Hi Greg- It is inaccurate to say that this object splashed down. In fact, much of it burned away during reentry, leaving much smaller debris. It would seem extremely unlikely that any ammonia was left by the time pieces hit the water. So there was only a bit of scrap metal, probably nothing of significant toxicity. The impact of this debris on the ocean ecology is likely to be near zero. Returning junk from low earth orbit is not currently practical in most cases. The only option is to allow it to reenter and (mostly) burn up. I suspect that the sum total of all the debris from space that has reached the ground doesn't add up to one scuttled destroyer (with far more toxics in the latter case as well). And ships are scuttled all the time, along with thousands every year that are simply lost at sea. Chris * Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com - Original Message - From: Greg Catterton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 11:41 AM Subject: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA The junk was a tank full of ammonia coolant on the international space station that was no longer needed. Astronaut Clayton Anderson threw it overboard during a spacewalk in July 2007. Space station program manager Mike Suffredini said Monday that the debris splashed down somewhere between Australia and New Zealand Sunday night Am I alone in the idea that Nasa should be held criminaly liable for the polution of our waters? If an ordinary person was to dump toxic material into the ocean, surely we would be in alot of trouble... just becouse they are Nasa does not make them above the law. Ammonia is highly toxic to marine life! It is my opinion that this was an outright disrespect to the enviorment and a potential hazard to the marine life in the area of impact. I am very upset about this and feel Nasa was totally wrong for the actions they have done. This could have been handled in a much better fashion, and I for one would like to see Nasa held accountable for this. I am really upset about this whole situtation. surely if it had fallen on someones propery NASA would be in alot of trouble... Shame on you NASA. Shame on you Clayton Anderson. __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA
take your pick: http://news.aol.com/article/space-station-trash-plunging-to-earth/234755?icid=200100397x1212231854x1200798183 http://www.space.com/aol/081031-space-station-debris-reentry.html http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2007/07/19/spacejunk_spa.html just a few links about it. --- On Mon, 11/3/08, Greg Hupe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Greg Hupe [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Date: Monday, November 3, 2008, 2:10 PM Hello Greg, Where do you read that an astronaut, ..threw it (ammonia tank) overboard (from the International Space Station) during a space walk in July 2007.? I find it highly unlikely that material would be purposely tossed into space to potentially be a floating target for future spacecraft and/or satellites to hit. I do not think NASA has the same mindset that some cruise ship operators have by throwing their bags of trash into the ocean. My thoughts! Greg Greg Hupe The Hupe Collection NaturesVault (eBay) [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.LunarRock.com IMCA 3163 Click here for my current eBay auctions: http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQsassZnaturesvault - Original Message - From: Greg Catterton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 1:41 PM Subject: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA The junk was a tank full of ammonia coolant on the international space station that was no longer needed. Astronaut Clayton Anderson threw it overboard during a spacewalk in July 2007. Space station program manager Mike Suffredini said Monday that the debris splashed down somewhere between Australia and New Zealand Sunday night Am I alone in the idea that Nasa should be held criminaly liable for the polution of our waters? If an ordinary person was to dump toxic material into the ocean, surely we would be in alot of trouble... just becouse they are Nasa does not make them above the law. Ammonia is highly toxic to marine life! It is my opinion that this was an outright disrespect to the enviorment and a potential hazard to the marine life in the area of impact. I am very upset about this and feel Nasa was totally wrong for the actions they have done. This could have been handled in a much better fashion, and I for one would like to see Nasa held accountable for this. I am really upset about this whole situtation. surely if it had fallen on someones propery NASA would be in alot of trouble... Shame on you NASA. Shame on you Clayton Anderson. __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA
why could they not have returned it to earth on a shuttle that was going to be returning to earth anyway? No extra cost involved there. --- On Mon, 11/3/08, Del Waterbury [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Del Waterbury [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Monday, November 3, 2008, 2:14 PM I don't think the taxpayers would be to happy to hear NASA spent millions of dollars to remove a piece of space junk. Letting it enter back into the atmoshphere is the safe and cheapest way to go. Of course we could just let it stay up there and add to the many pieces of space junk already floating around putting astronauts lives in danger. Del --- On Mon, 11/3/08, Greg Catterton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Greg Catterton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Date: Monday, November 3, 2008, 11:06 AM If that is the case, why was such a big deal made about not going anywhere near the debris if it had impacted on land becouse of toxic hazards? I agree about the scuttled destroyer, but at the same time, I dont think that is right to do also. Perhaps the toxic nature that has been reported has mislead me to think that it was more of a big deal then it is, but it is troubling to think that this was the best thing they could come up with. Surely it could have been returned to earth on a shuttle and disposed of properly. --- On Mon, 11/3/08, Chris Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Chris Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Date: Monday, November 3, 2008, 1:57 PM Hi Greg- It is inaccurate to say that this object splashed down. In fact, much of it burned away during reentry, leaving much smaller debris. It would seem extremely unlikely that any ammonia was left by the time pieces hit the water. So there was only a bit of scrap metal, probably nothing of significant toxicity. The impact of this debris on the ocean ecology is likely to be near zero. Returning junk from low earth orbit is not currently practical in most cases. The only option is to allow it to reenter and (mostly) burn up. I suspect that the sum total of all the debris from space that has reached the ground doesn't add up to one scuttled destroyer (with far more toxics in the latter case as well). And ships are scuttled all the time, along with thousands every year that are simply lost at sea. Chris * Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com - Original Message - From: Greg Catterton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 11:41 AM Subject: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA The junk was a tank full of ammonia coolant on the international space station that was no longer needed. Astronaut Clayton Anderson threw it overboard during a spacewalk in July 2007. Space station program manager Mike Suffredini said Monday that the debris splashed down somewhere between Australia and New Zealand Sunday night Am I alone in the idea that Nasa should be held criminaly liable for the polution of our waters? If an ordinary person was to dump toxic material into the ocean, surely we would be in alot of trouble... just becouse they are Nasa does not make them above the law. Ammonia is highly toxic to marine life! It is my opinion that this was an outright disrespect to the enviorment and a potential hazard to the marine life in the area of impact. I am very upset about this and feel Nasa was totally wrong for the actions they have done. This could have been handled in a much better fashion, and I for one would like to see Nasa held accountable for this. I am really upset about this whole situtation. surely if it had fallen on someones propery NASA would be in alot of trouble... Shame on you NASA. Shame on you Clayton Anderson. __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA
Hi Greg- This thing was, in fact, deliberately discarded with the knowledge that it would reenter. It posed no risk to anything else because it was large enough to track, in a known orbit, and was sure to have a short lifetime in space. It had no potential to produce any additional debris. This isn't the first thing they scuttled from the ISS. Chris * Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com - Original Message - From: Greg Hupe [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 12:10 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA Hello Greg, Where do you read that an astronaut, ..threw it (ammonia tank) overboard (from the International Space Station) during a space walk in July 2007.? I find it highly unlikely that material would be purposely tossed into space to potentially be a floating target for future spacecraft and/or satellites to hit. I do not think NASA has the same mindset that some cruise ship operators have by throwing their bags of trash into the ocean. My thoughts! Greg __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA
It is the first thing I was aware of, until reading more about it. I know what ifs are really meaningless, however... if it had landed on a school full of kids, Im sure the cost of returning to earth would have been very cheap compared to the loss of life. If it had impacted on a house or other private property, would NASA have been liable? The replies about this have been really good and informative, Thanks to all for your input. Greg --- On Mon, 11/3/08, Chris Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Chris Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA To: Greg Hupe [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Date: Monday, November 3, 2008, 2:23 PM Hi Greg- This thing was, in fact, deliberately discarded with the knowledge that it would reenter. It posed no risk to anything else because it was large enough to track, in a known orbit, and was sure to have a short lifetime in space. It had no potential to produce any additional debris. This isn't the first thing they scuttled from the ISS. Chris * Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com - Original Message - From: Greg Hupe [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 12:10 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA Hello Greg, Where do you read that an astronaut, ..threw it (ammonia tank) overboard (from the International Space Station) during a space walk in July 2007.? I find it highly unlikely that material would be purposely tossed into space to potentially be a floating target for future spacecraft and/or satellites to hit. I do not think NASA has the same mindset that some cruise ship operators have by throwing their bags of trash into the ocean. My thoughts! Greg __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA
Hello Greg, Where do you read that an astronaut, ..threw it (ammonia tank) overboard (from the International Space Station) during a space walk in July 2007.? I find it highly unlikely that material would be purposely tossed into space to potentially be a floating target for future spacecraft and/or satellites to hit. I do not think NASA has the same mindset that some cruise ship operators have by throwing their bags of trash into the ocean. My thoughts! Greg Greg Hupe The Hupe Collection NaturesVault (eBay) [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.LunarRock.com IMCA 3163 Click here for my current eBay auctions: http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQsassZnaturesvault - Original Message - From: Greg Catterton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 1:41 PM Subject: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA The junk was a tank full of ammonia coolant on the international space station that was no longer needed. Astronaut Clayton Anderson threw it overboard during a spacewalk in July 2007. Space station program manager Mike Suffredini said Monday that the debris splashed down somewhere between Australia and New Zealand Sunday night Am I alone in the idea that Nasa should be held criminaly liable for the polution of our waters? If an ordinary person was to dump toxic material into the ocean, surely we would be in alot of trouble... just becouse they are Nasa does not make them above the law. Ammonia is highly toxic to marine life! It is my opinion that this was an outright disrespect to the enviorment and a potential hazard to the marine life in the area of impact. I am very upset about this and feel Nasa was totally wrong for the actions they have done. This could have been handled in a much better fashion, and I for one would like to see Nasa held accountable for this. I am really upset about this whole situtation. surely if it had fallen on someones propery NASA would be in alot of trouble... Shame on you NASA. Shame on you Clayton Anderson. __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA
--- On Mon, 11/3/08, Greg Catterton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Am I alone in the idea that Nasa should be held criminaly liable for the polution of our waters?...snip Yeppers!!!---I'd sure hope you are the only one...(((rolling eyes))). I think this post should be nominated for the Emily Lutella Award. No, seriously-- that was pretty funny no matter how you intended it. It was good satire on GW, green-flavored victimism. Statistically, any remaining ammonia was 99.999% consumed in reentry: it has a very low boiling point--and there is no evidence anything including ammonia made it into the ocean. So it was really closer to air polution but you didn't make a case for that. The insight argued is too porous to hold a whif of ammonia. Sooo-- so far off reality they are fruitless to address in their entirety but using your own reasoning --I do know that the ammonia in your urine is a pollutant. If you are so morally outraged, I suggest you take any future pisses on your leg rather than allowing it into the water system to avoid future criminal acts yourself... drink it, bottle it, whatever-- just don't piss in my water nor on me again. Oh and under the new Administration your breath is a pollutant as well so try to hold it. Charter member of the Strained Gnat and Drank Camel Watcher Society Elton __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA
On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 11:06:38 -0800 (PST), you wrote: If that is the case, why was such a big deal made about not going anywhere near the debris if it had impacted on land becouse of toxic hazards? 1. The hazards imagined for land debris are things like nitrogen tetraoxide and other potentially toxic propellants. 2. Toxicity is about concentration. Drink a cup of ammonia, and you are likely to have a bad (but possibly short) day. Dump a cup of ammonia in a swimming pool, and you'll be quite safe jumping in. (Heck, if you are in a public pool, a few cups of ammonia have most likely already been dumped in). __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA
Hi, Greg, Chris, All, Ecological impact is likely a true zero. We don't even know if ANY piece of the tank made it to ground or not. Odds are against. But I want to quibble with this: ships are scuttled all the time, along with thousands every year that are simply lost at sea. The world is not a gigantic video game of utter destruction. The current lost rate is five per thousand ships. That amounts to about 300 ships a year. And the term lost includes all causes of being removed from service. Most lost ships are lost near coasts, on reefs, in collisions with other ships. They are damaged beyond the worth of saving and are scraped when they're lifted off and tugboated to a port. The classic lost at sea, where a ship sets out and vanishes, is unbelievably rare! Footnote data: http://www.imo.org/includes/blastDataOnly.asp/data_id%3D5673/8133.pdf Avast, matey! Sterling K. Webb --- - Original Message - From: Chris Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 12:57 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA Hi Greg- It is inaccurate to say that this object splashed down. In fact, much of it burned away during reentry, leaving much smaller debris. It would seem extremely unlikely that any ammonia was left by the time pieces hit the water. So there was only a bit of scrap metal, probably nothing of significant toxicity. The impact of this debris on the ocean ecology is likely to be near zero. Returning junk from low earth orbit is not currently practical in most cases. The only option is to allow it to reenter and (mostly) burn up. I suspect that the sum total of all the debris from space that has reached the ground doesn't add up to one scuttled destroyer (with far more toxics in the latter case as well). And ships are scuttled all the time, along with thousands every year that are simply lost at sea. Chris * Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com - Original Message - From: Greg Catterton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 11:41 AM Subject: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA The junk was a tank full of ammonia coolant on the international space station that was no longer needed. Astronaut Clayton Anderson threw it overboard during a spacewalk in July 2007. Space station program manager Mike Suffredini said Monday that the debris splashed down somewhere between Australia and New Zealand Sunday night Am I alone in the idea that Nasa should be held criminaly liable for the polution of our waters? If an ordinary person was to dump toxic material into the ocean, surely we would be in alot of trouble... just becouse they are Nasa does not make them above the law. Ammonia is highly toxic to marine life! It is my opinion that this was an outright disrespect to the enviorment and a potential hazard to the marine life in the area of impact. I am very upset about this and feel Nasa was totally wrong for the actions they have done. This could have been handled in a much better fashion, and I for one would like to see Nasa held accountable for this. I am really upset about this whole situtation. surely if it had fallen on someones propery NASA would be in alot of trouble... Shame on you NASA. Shame on you Clayton Anderson. __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA
Hi Chris, Thank you for replying in a short and easy way to describe the objects size being trackable. I won't begin to pretend to know about these things. The initial comment seemed like as hip-shot and I didn't think NASA or the astronaut deserved it. Best regards, Greg Greg Hupe The Hupe Collection NaturesVault (eBay) [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.LunarRock.com IMCA 3163 Click here for my current eBay auctions: http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQsassZnaturesvault - Original Message - From: Chris Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Greg Hupe [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 2:23 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA Hi Greg- This thing was, in fact, deliberately discarded with the knowledge that it would reenter. It posed no risk to anything else because it was large enough to track, in a known orbit, and was sure to have a short lifetime in space. It had no potential to produce any additional debris. This isn't the first thing they scuttled from the ISS. Chris * Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com - Original Message - From: Greg Hupe [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 12:10 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA Hello Greg, Where do you read that an astronaut, ..threw it (ammonia tank) overboard (from the International Space Station) during a space walk in July 2007.? I find it highly unlikely that material would be purposely tossed into space to potentially be a floating target for future spacecraft and/or satellites to hit. I do not think NASA has the same mindset that some cruise ship operators have by throwing their bags of trash into the ocean. My thoughts! Greg __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA
Greg, my full respect for your cares about the environment. But I doubt that any ammonia reached the lower atmosphere. Besides, if there is one gouvernment outfit that has had a major positive impact on environmental protection in the past then its NASA. Svend www.meteorite-recon.com - Original Message - From: Greg Catterton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 7:41 PM Subject: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA The junk was a tank full of ammonia coolant on the international space station that was no longer needed. Astronaut Clayton Anderson threw it overboard during a spacewalk in July 2007. Space station program manager Mike Suffredini said Monday that the debris splashed down somewhere between Australia and New Zealand Sunday night Am I alone in the idea that Nasa should be held criminaly liable for the polution of our waters? If an ordinary person was to dump toxic material into the ocean, surely we would be in alot of trouble... just becouse they are Nasa does not make them above the law. Ammonia is highly toxic to marine life! It is my opinion that this was an outright disrespect to the enviorment and a potential hazard to the marine life in the area of impact. I am very upset about this and feel Nasa was totally wrong for the actions they have done. This could have been handled in a much better fashion, and I for one would like to see Nasa held accountable for this. I am really upset about this whole situtation. surely if it had fallen on someones propery NASA would be in alot of trouble... Shame on you NASA. Shame on you Clayton Anderson. __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA
This would require a new mission plan and millions of dollars in training exercises and mock-ups. The tank weighs 1400 lbs and it would have to be brought in the payload bay. A system would have to be designed and installed to hold the tank. I forget the figure, but there is a cost per pound in space flight and it is not cheap. When those payload bay doors open it costs $!! Bottom line: it's not feasible. Burn baby burn. Mike Bandli -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Greg Catterton Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 11:22 AM To: Del Waterbury Cc: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA why could they not have returned it to earth on a shuttle that was going to be returning to earth anyway? No extra cost involved there. --- On Mon, 11/3/08, Del Waterbury [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Del Waterbury [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Monday, November 3, 2008, 2:14 PM I don't think the taxpayers would be to happy to hear NASA spent millions of dollars to remove a piece of space junk. Letting it enter back into the atmoshphere is the safe and cheapest way to go. Of course we could just let it stay up there and add to the many pieces of space junk already floating around putting astronauts lives in danger. Del --- On Mon, 11/3/08, Greg Catterton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Greg Catterton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Date: Monday, November 3, 2008, 11:06 AM If that is the case, why was such a big deal made about not going anywhere near the debris if it had impacted on land becouse of toxic hazards? I agree about the scuttled destroyer, but at the same time, I dont think that is right to do also. Perhaps the toxic nature that has been reported has mislead me to think that it was more of a big deal then it is, but it is troubling to think that this was the best thing they could come up with. Surely it could have been returned to earth on a shuttle and disposed of properly. --- On Mon, 11/3/08, Chris Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Chris Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Date: Monday, November 3, 2008, 1:57 PM Hi Greg- It is inaccurate to say that this object splashed down. In fact, much of it burned away during reentry, leaving much smaller debris. It would seem extremely unlikely that any ammonia was left by the time pieces hit the water. So there was only a bit of scrap metal, probably nothing of significant toxicity. The impact of this debris on the ocean ecology is likely to be near zero. Returning junk from low earth orbit is not currently practical in most cases. The only option is to allow it to reenter and (mostly) burn up. I suspect that the sum total of all the debris from space that has reached the ground doesn't add up to one scuttled destroyer (with far more toxics in the latter case as well). And ships are scuttled all the time, along with thousands every year that are simply lost at sea. Chris * Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com - Original Message - From: Greg Catterton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 11:41 AM Subject: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA The junk was a tank full of ammonia coolant on the international space station that was no longer needed. Astronaut Clayton Anderson threw it overboard during a spacewalk in July 2007. Space station program manager Mike Suffredini said Monday that the debris splashed down somewhere between Australia and New Zealand Sunday night Am I alone in the idea that Nasa should be held criminaly liable for the polution of our waters? If an ordinary person was to dump toxic material into the ocean, surely we would be in alot of trouble... just becouse they are Nasa does not make them above the law. Ammonia is highly toxic to marine life! It is my opinion that this was an outright disrespect to the enviorment and a potential hazard to the marine life in the area of impact. I am very upset about this and feel Nasa was totally wrong for the actions they have done. This could have been handled in a much better fashion, and I for one would
Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA
no hip shot was intended. I was basing my opinions on reports I have read concerning this and as I have said before, I am not as experienced at these things as some of you are and the reports I read made it out to be a major health risk to people if it was a land impact. that said, I figured the health risk to marine life would have been the same. I am not out to blast NASA or the atronaut, I just did not understand why they could not have simply returned it in a shuttle that was returning to earth. --- On Mon, 11/3/08, Greg Hupe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Greg Hupe [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA To: Chris Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Date: Monday, November 3, 2008, 2:35 PM Hi Chris, Thank you for replying in a short and easy way to describe the objects size being trackable. I won't begin to pretend to know about these things. The initial comment seemed like as hip-shot and I didn't think NASA or the astronaut deserved it. Best regards, Greg Greg Hupe The Hupe Collection NaturesVault (eBay) [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.LunarRock.com IMCA 3163 Click here for my current eBay auctions: http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQsassZnaturesvault - Original Message - From: Chris Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Greg Hupe [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 2:23 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA Hi Greg- This thing was, in fact, deliberately discarded with the knowledge that it would reenter. It posed no risk to anything else because it was large enough to track, in a known orbit, and was sure to have a short lifetime in space. It had no potential to produce any additional debris. This isn't the first thing they scuttled from the ISS. Chris * Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com - Original Message - From: Greg Hupe [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 12:10 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA Hello Greg, Where do you read that an astronaut, ..threw it (ammonia tank) overboard (from the International Space Station) during a space walk in July 2007.? I find it highly unlikely that material would be purposely tossed into space to potentially be a floating target for future spacecraft and/or satellites to hit. I do not think NASA has the same mindset that some cruise ship operators have by throwing their bags of trash into the ocean. My thoughts! Greg __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA
There is established international law dealing with legal liability for damage or injury caused by space debris reaching the ground. All space missions (in the U.S., at least) consider the likelihood of material surviving reentry. It's a question of statistics, and the chance of damage is almost always extremely small. In rare cases where something very large is being returned, it is usual for the object to be scuttled under controlled circumstances, to ensure reentry over the ocean. This refrigeration unit did not require a semi-controlled reentry because it was very unlikely enough material would survive to the ground to matter, regardless of where the decay occurred. Of course, if an object should land on a school, it's easy to say how much cheaper it would have been to return it. But that logic only applies if you return everything, and that would be far, far more expensive than the cost of a single object hitting a school. In this case, given the size of debris remaining (if any), it's likely that something hitting a roof would just knock off some shingles and slide down. I'll bet your risk is much greater from being hit by something falling off an airplane than being hit by something reentering from space. And neither risk is high enough to spend much time worrying about! Chris * Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com - Original Message - From: Greg Catterton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Chris Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 12:30 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA It is the first thing I was aware of, until reading more about it. I know what ifs are really meaningless, however... if it had landed on a school full of kids, Im sure the cost of returning to earth would have been very cheap compared to the loss of life. If it had impacted on a house or other private property, would NASA have been liable? The replies about this have been really good and informative, Thanks to all for your input. Greg __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA
On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 13:34:51 -0600, you wrote: The world is not a gigantic video game of utter destruction. The current lost rate is five per thousand ships. That amounts to about 300 ships a year. And the term lost includes all causes of being removed from service. On the other hand, there are literally thousands of cargo containers lost as sea every year-- and some of them probably contain stuff not overly fish-friendly. http://www.google.com/search?num=100hl=ensafe=offq=cargo+containers+lost+at+seabtnG=Search __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] cleaning Millbillillie ?
Steve#3 wrote: [not] Anything with HCL or flourine Harlan wrote: oxaclic acid work like is does when removing red clay stains form quartz crystals? Hi Friends, Just a few thoughts: Oxalic acid will probably clean some meteoritical residue off any quartz crystals you can find in meteorites. Oxaclic[sic] acid only gives a good vista with Meteorites for Windows. Flourine[sic], milk of magnesia and monocynical pigeonite eggs [cum grano salis] are useful in a pinch in the field for starving meteorite hunters trying to eke out a living off the land, so on this I agree with Steve#3.* Are quartz crystals porous in aqueous solutions? Are stony meteorites? Are quartz crystals uniform in composition? Are stony meteorites? Is silicon dioxide (=glass, quartz, etc.) inert to these reagents? Are stony meteorites? I agree it would be nice to be an alchemist, but I think this is far more profound of a science than these posts would suggest, without an academic evaluation of a broad range of chemistry and mineralization processes. I say this because I do not like many cleaning techniques I've seen used on metorites just to get some skin-deep aesthetics for a quick sale. In fact, some cleaning procedures are based on removing visually contaminated meteorite material and falsely refinishing the surface and representing it as something it is not (losing information on flight markings, etc, which has already been suggested). There are many degrees of misrepresentation and negligence by gurus in cleaning meteorites for personal use, but then passing them along to clueless enthusiastic buyers. Hopefully this is recognized for what it is, just as fake meteorite claims, or clarified with asociated label and hopefully a lower price. Sic transit gloria astra, but great health anyways Doug PS Ponce de Leon is reputed to have washed his meteorites in Boinca Fountain off Florida, which restored their youthful appearance. Other cynics believe there is no such thing as a fountain of youth, and we should just appreciate all stages of life as equally precious, especially when getting older as challenges become more and more impressive... *They are good ingredients for meteorite waffles and not good candidates for the next craze poisoning the eBay meteorite quarry. Steve#3's example of my 1860 proof dollar coin that was buried and impregnated in the outback for 30 years doesn't seem to remind me either of stony meteorites or even of a proof coin that has anything suggestive of having been struck on proof dies - so here I disagree with this off-base analogy. Way too many apples to oranges comparisons here (quartz crystals, etc.). Not saying that some insights on the science with merit wouldn't be very interesting, just, so far none have been offered. -Original Message- From: Steve Dunklee [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Alexander Seidel [EMAIL PROTECTED]; meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; tett [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 11:19 am Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] cleaning Millbillillie ? Yes. So might msg, tsp, Dmso, and white vinegar. depending on a lot of conditions. Anything with HCL or flourine should be avoided, as well as Sulfuric acid. Steve P.S. But Don't clean them! they are like coins! --- On Sun, 11/2/08, mckinney trammell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: mckinney trammell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] cleaning Millbillillie ? To: Alexander Seidel [EMAIL PROTECTED], meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED], tett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sunday, November 2, 2008, 7:14 PM would oxaclic acid work like is does when removing red clay stains form quartz crystals? --- On Sun, 11/2/08, tett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: tett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] cleaning Millbillillie ? To: Alexander Seidel [EMAIL PROTECTED], meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sunday, November 2, 2008, 5:10 PM I now have a much deeper appreciation for Millbillillie. I will not attempt cleaning and will reflect on the subtle beauty these meteorites have. Many Thanks! Mike - Original Message - From: Alexander Seidel [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: tett [EMAIL PROTECTED]; meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2008 11:24 AM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] cleaning Millbillillie ? I agree that there is a special characteristic that would be lost if the red staining were to be removed from a Millbillillie individual. However, it is also great to have meteorites pristine with no terrestrial alteration. The priciest Millbillillies are those that with dark black glassy crusts. No, a meteorite like Millbillillie should be looked at in a much more subtle way! It fell in 1960, and was collected no earlier than 10 years later! Talking about Millbillillie is exciting in
Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA
G'Day Greg and all I thought I read that the tank was not stable enough to stand a trip back in the shuttle and could pose a risk to the shuttle and crew. Cheers Johnno - Original Message - From: Greg Catterton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Del Waterbury [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 11:21 AM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA why could they not have returned it to earth on a shuttle that was going to be returning to earth anyway? No extra cost involved there. --- On Mon, 11/3/08, Del Waterbury [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Del Waterbury [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Monday, November 3, 2008, 2:14 PM I don't think the taxpayers would be to happy to hear NASA spent millions of dollars to remove a piece of space junk. Letting it enter back into the atmoshphere is the safe and cheapest way to go. Of course we could just let it stay up there and add to the many pieces of space junk already floating around putting astronauts lives in danger. Del --- On Mon, 11/3/08, Greg Catterton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Greg Catterton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Date: Monday, November 3, 2008, 11:06 AM If that is the case, why was such a big deal made about not going anywhere near the debris if it had impacted on land becouse of toxic hazards? I agree about the scuttled destroyer, but at the same time, I dont think that is right to do also. Perhaps the toxic nature that has been reported has mislead me to think that it was more of a big deal then it is, but it is troubling to think that this was the best thing they could come up with. Surely it could have been returned to earth on a shuttle and disposed of properly. --- On Mon, 11/3/08, Chris Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Chris Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Date: Monday, November 3, 2008, 1:57 PM Hi Greg- It is inaccurate to say that this object splashed down. In fact, much of it burned away during reentry, leaving much smaller debris. It would seem extremely unlikely that any ammonia was left by the time pieces hit the water. So there was only a bit of scrap metal, probably nothing of significant toxicity. The impact of this debris on the ocean ecology is likely to be near zero. Returning junk from low earth orbit is not currently practical in most cases. The only option is to allow it to reenter and (mostly) burn up. I suspect that the sum total of all the debris from space that has reached the ground doesn't add up to one scuttled destroyer (with far more toxics in the latter case as well). And ships are scuttled all the time, along with thousands every year that are simply lost at sea. Chris * Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com - Original Message - From: Greg Catterton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 11:41 AM Subject: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA The junk was a tank full of ammonia coolant on the international space station that was no longer needed. Astronaut Clayton Anderson threw it overboard during a spacewalk in July 2007. Space station program manager Mike Suffredini said Monday that the debris splashed down somewhere between Australia and New Zealand Sunday night Am I alone in the idea that Nasa should be held criminaly liable for the polution of our waters? If an ordinary person was to dump toxic material into the ocean, surely we would be in alot of trouble... just becouse they are Nasa does not make them above the law. Ammonia is highly toxic to marine life! It is my opinion that this was an outright disrespect to the enviorment and a potential hazard to the marine life in the area of impact. I am very upset about this and feel Nasa was totally wrong for the actions they have done. This could have been handled in a much better fashion, and I for one would like to see Nasa held accountable for this. I am really upset about this whole situtation. surely if it had fallen on someones propery NASA would be in alot of trouble... Shame on you NASA. Shame on you Clayton Anderson. __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA
Hi Chris, Listees, It isn't a shade of illegal dumping at issue as far as I can tell. The possibly crass accusations that stated this thread might consider that transporting the old tank in a Space Shuttle back to earth would present a far greater danger to occupants and American residents in the landing path across the USA upon reentry rather than uncontrolled incineration it was given. If you don't believe that, why don't you volunteer for a return flight with that oversized ammonia tank strapped in next to you in the belly of the Shuttle as the 30 year old vehicle starts shaking like hell in a controlled fall your life depends upon in reentry. Even Iron Man might get a cold sweat on that one. There was no safer way, unless you wanted to build a booster for it and blast it off from a mobile launch platform in low earth orbit into the Sun :). Is this a sensible? Best wishes and great health, Doug -Original Message- From: Chris Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 1:52 pm Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA There is established international law dealing with legal liability for damage or injury caused by space debris reaching the ground. All space missions (in the U.S., at least) consider the likelihood of material surviving reentry. It's a question of statistics, and the chance of damage is almost always extremely small. In rare cases where something very large is being returned, it is usual for the object to be scuttled under controlled circumstances, to ensure reentry over the ocean. This refrigeration unit did not require a semi-controlled reentry because it was very unlikely enough material would survive to the ground to matter, regardless of where the decay occurred. Of course, if an object should land on a school, it's easy to say how much cheaper it would have been to return it. But that logic only applies if you return everything, and that would be far, far more expensive than the cost of a single object hitting a school. In this case, given the size of debris remaining (if any), it's likely that something hitting a roof would just knock off some shingles and slide down. I'll bet your risk is much greater from being hit by something falling off an airplane than being hit by something reentering from space. And neither risk is high enough to spend much time worrying about! Chris * Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com - Original Message - From: Greg Catterton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Chris Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 12:30 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA It is the first thing I was aware of, until reading more about it. I know what ifs are really meaningless, however... if it had landed on a school full of kids, Im sure the cost of returning to earth would have been very cheap compared to the loss of life. If it had impacted on a house or other private property, would NASA have been liable? The replies about this have been really good and informative, Thanks to all for your input. Greg __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA
The possibly crass accusations that stated this thread... I take it as a simple misunderstanding, perhaps a reasonable one given the way things like this are covered in the popular press. The replies were reasonable and friendly, as was Greg's response. Nice to see... civility is sometimes in short supply around here. Chris * Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 2:11 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA Hi Chris, Listees, It isn't a shade of illegal dumping at issue as far as I can tell. The possibly crass accusations that stated this thread might consider that transporting the old tank in a Space Shuttle back to earth would present a far greater danger to occupants and American residents in the landing path across the USA upon reentry rather than uncontrolled incineration it was given. If you don't believe that, why don't you volunteer for a return flight with that oversized ammonia tank strapped in next to you in the belly of the Shuttle as the 30 year old vehicle starts shaking like hell in a controlled fall your life depends upon in reentry. Even Iron Man might get a cold sweat on that one. There was no safer way, unless you wanted to build a booster for it and blast it off from a mobile launch platform in low earth orbit into the Sun :). Is this a sensible? Best wishes and great health, Doug __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA
so long as it does not leave a sheen, the coast guard, won't care. --- On Mon, 11/3/08, Darren Garrison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Darren Garrison [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Date: Monday, November 3, 2008, 3:02 PM On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 13:34:51 -0600, you wrote: The world is not a gigantic video game of utter destruction. The current lost rate is five per thousand ships. That amounts to about 300 ships a year. And the term lost includes all causes of being removed from service. On the other hand, there are literally thousands of cargo containers lost as sea every year-- and some of them probably contain stuff not overly fish-friendly. http://www.google.com/search?num=100hl=ensafe=offq=cargo+containers+lost+at+seabtnG=Search __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA
I will state again, from the reports I read, it was supposed to pose a serious health risk to anyone who would have come into contact with it had there been a land impact... that said, I assumed that the same would be for marine life. I felt that if that was the case, it was very reckless of NASA to simply toss it out to fall to earth. Again, I am new to this and do not understand all the things involved. All reports I read stated that several pieces would survive re entry and some would be up to 40-50 lbs... I may not have fully understood the issue, but I do feel some comments directed to me were very insulting. I have stated before I am newer to this and do not understand everything involved. while several of you have been polite and helpful, I am left feeling that certain ones who responded need to be more considerate of people who are new to this and still learning. Its not as if I publicly insulted anyone here and for some of the comments I have recieved I feel are totally uncalled for. I do understand the safety issues involved with returning it to earth, and the costs... none of which was explained in the news reports... that is why I felt NASA was reckless and should be held liable - I was not properly informed and took the reports at face value. --- On Mon, 11/3/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA To: Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Date: Monday, November 3, 2008, 4:11 PM Hi Chris, Listees, It isn't a shade of illegal dumping at issue as far as I can tell. The possibly crass accusations that stated this thread might consider that transporting the old tank in a Space Shuttle back to earth would present a far greater danger to occupants and American residents in the landing path across the USA upon reentry rather than uncontrolled incineration it was given. If you don't believe that, why don't you volunteer for a return flight with that oversized ammonia tank strapped in next to you in the belly of the Shuttle as the 30 year old vehicle starts shaking like hell in a controlled fall your life depends upon in reentry. Even Iron Man might get a cold sweat on that one. There was no safer way, unless you wanted to build a booster for it and blast it off from a mobile launch platform in low earth orbit into the Sun :). Is this a sensible? Best wishes and great health, Doug -Original Message- From: Chris Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 1:52 pm Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA There is established international law dealing with legal liability for damage or injury caused by space debris reaching the ground. All space missions (in the U.S., at least) consider the likelihood of material surviving reentry. It's a question of statistics, and the chance of damage is almost always extremely small. In rare cases where something very large is being returned, it is usual for the object to be scuttled under controlled circumstances, to ensure reentry over the ocean. This refrigeration unit did not require a semi-controlled reentry because it was very unlikely enough material would survive to the ground to matter, regardless of where the decay occurred. Of course, if an object should land on a school, it's easy to say how much cheaper it would have been to return it. But that logic only applies if you return everything, and that would be far, far more expensive than the cost of a single object hitting a school. In this case, given the size of debris remaining (if any), it's likely that something hitting a roof would just knock off some shingles and slide down. I'll bet your risk is much greater from being hit by something falling off an airplane than being hit by something reentering from space. And neither risk is high enough to spend much time worrying about! Chris * Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com - Original Message - From: Greg Catterton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Chris Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 12:30 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA It is the first thing I was aware of, until reading more about it. I know what ifs are really meaningless, however... if it had landed on a school full of kids, Im sure the cost of returning to earth would have been very cheap compared to the loss of life. If it had impacted on a house or other private property, would NASA have been liable? The replies about this have been really good and informative, Thanks to all for your input. Greg
Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA
Can we take this to a NASA or SPACE JUNK list. This has nothing to do with meteorites, though interesting, has run its coarse and filled my inbox. Michael Farmer --- On Mon, 11/3/08, Greg Catterton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Greg Catterton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA To: Del Waterbury [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Date: Monday, November 3, 2008, 12:21 PM why could they not have returned it to earth on a shuttle that was going to be returning to earth anyway? No extra cost involved there. --- On Mon, 11/3/08, Del Waterbury [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Del Waterbury [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Monday, November 3, 2008, 2:14 PM I don't think the taxpayers would be to happy to hear NASA spent millions of dollars to remove a piece of space junk. Letting it enter back into the atmoshphere is the safe and cheapest way to go. Of course we could just let it stay up there and add to the many pieces of space junk already floating around putting astronauts lives in danger. Del --- On Mon, 11/3/08, Greg Catterton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Greg Catterton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Date: Monday, November 3, 2008, 11:06 AM If that is the case, why was such a big deal made about not going anywhere near the debris if it had impacted on land becouse of toxic hazards? I agree about the scuttled destroyer, but at the same time, I dont think that is right to do also. Perhaps the toxic nature that has been reported has mislead me to think that it was more of a big deal then it is, but it is troubling to think that this was the best thing they could come up with. Surely it could have been returned to earth on a shuttle and disposed of properly. --- On Mon, 11/3/08, Chris Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Chris Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Date: Monday, November 3, 2008, 1:57 PM Hi Greg- It is inaccurate to say that this object splashed down. In fact, much of it burned away during reentry, leaving much smaller debris. It would seem extremely unlikely that any ammonia was left by the time pieces hit the water. So there was only a bit of scrap metal, probably nothing of significant toxicity. The impact of this debris on the ocean ecology is likely to be near zero. Returning junk from low earth orbit is not currently practical in most cases. The only option is to allow it to reenter and (mostly) burn up. I suspect that the sum total of all the debris from space that has reached the ground doesn't add up to one scuttled destroyer (with far more toxics in the latter case as well). And ships are scuttled all the time, along with thousands every year that are simply lost at sea. Chris * Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com - Original Message - From: Greg Catterton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 11:41 AM Subject: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA The junk was a tank full of ammonia coolant on the international space station that was no longer needed. Astronaut Clayton Anderson threw it overboard during a spacewalk in July 2007. Space station program manager Mike Suffredini said Monday that the debris splashed down somewhere between Australia and New Zealand Sunday night Am I alone in the idea that Nasa should be held criminaly liable for the polution of our waters? If an ordinary person was to dump toxic material into the ocean, surely we would be in alot of trouble... just becouse they are Nasa does not make them above the law. Ammonia is highly toxic to marine life! It is my opinion that this was an outright disrespect to the enviorment and a potential hazard to the marine life in the area of impact. I am very upset about this and feel Nasa was totally wrong for the actions they have done. This could have been handled in a much better fashion, and I for one would like to see Nasa held accountable for this. I am
Re: [meteorite-list] Paneth-meteorite kolloqium 29.-31 October 2008 inRies-crater
Hello Jerry list, the lectures of the Paneth-Colloquium were very interesting. But many of them were very difficult to understand, due to the complex and many different isotopes examinations. For your interest please download the list of all abstracts and contact the autor for further information. Paneth Colloquium 2008 (http://www.cosmochemistry.org) With best wishes from Ries-crater, Thomas Kurtz Original-Nachricht Datum: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 21:36:18 -0400 Von: Jerry [EMAIL PROTECTED] An: Thomas Kurtz [EMAIL PROTECTED], meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Betreff: Re: [meteorite-list] Paneth-meteorite kolloqium 29.-31 October 2008 inRies-crater Sounds like a terrific opportunity Thomas. I wish I could attend. Perhaps an article in Meteorite Magazine highlighting some of the lectures might be something that many of us on the List would benefit from. Thanks. Jerry Flaherty - Original Message - From: Thomas Kurtz [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 5:35 PM Subject: [meteorite-list] Paneth-meteorite kolloqium 29.-31 October 2008 inRies-crater Dear Meteorite friends, end of October (29.-30.) 2008, there will be a lot of interesting meteorite-lectures in the Ries-crater in Germany. (all will be in english) When you ever planned to visit the crater, this will be an interesting opportunity to register for the colloqium too. 80 participants registered already. The Paneth-Kolloquium is a small European meeting that brings together students and researchers from different fields of cosmochemistry, planetology and astrophysics. All information about the Paneth-Kolloquium 2008, registration and registration fee, abstract submission as well as accommodation is available at http://www.kosmochemie.de/ Deadline for late registration: October 15 Deadline for abstract submission: September 30 Everybody from the list, who will register, please let me know, because I´m living since 2007 in the Ries-crater and could give you some support. With best wishes from Germany, Thomas -- Pt! Schon vom neuen GMX MultiMessenger gehört? Der kann`s mit allen: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/multimessenger __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list -- Der GMX SmartSurfer hilft bis zu 70% Ihrer Onlinekosten zu sparen! Ideal für Modem und ISDN: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/smartsurfer __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA
On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 13:28:08 -0800 (PST), you wrote: I may not have fully understood the issue, but I do feel some comments directed to me were very insulting. Oh, they're just in the tank for ammonia. __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Help, please
Hi all, I have been receiving multiple emails from one [EMAIL PROTECTED]. These emails consist of offensive And often racist political fear focused propaganda. I have written this person asking who they are and Have gotten no response - the act of a coward in my book. I was wondering if anyone on the list recognizes This email address and knows who it is. If you do, would You please email me off list. I have had it with this. Thanks - and sorry for taking list time, but I THINK I have seen this email address before. Best wishes, Michael __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA
No problem Greg C. Ironically, I just posted based on the posts (press!) your reply got on the list, and of course qualified it by calling it possible so as to report rather than inject my opinion. Had not yet seen your recent clarification in the flurry of responses. NASA has done some shameful things, but if one points one specific out in a judgemental way, we should be careful to be specific and check our own sources and have a defensible argument. Thankfully this was not one of NASA's blunders. In addition, if it is ISS related, NASA is not alone, but rather part of an international team of accomplices and taxpayers ;) After being on the list longer, it seems friendly advice not to shame anyone, including NASA, unless you're enjoying a heated exchange, the list never fails, in which case it is nice to have reasonable facts to back up claims, rather than just tough talk (not referring to you at all with this). And the longer you are here the harder it will be for anyone to peel off your own heat-shield tiles :) Another ironic thing about the list, is ocassionally we lose new members who attempt to start their own forum after they participate in the heated exchanges and decide they can do a better job elsewhere on the www. They then point to heated exchanges on the list and try to draw list members by saying they moderate on their sites and the list is a mess. Some dealers think this draws business away from them, others are frustrated with all the places they must go for information. I truly hope you enjoy this list and contribute for our benefit, and do not feel that way. This list is kinda fun in that respect, it is peer reviewed by the best of the best - and that is the best it gets for amateurs. Welcome to the list, and please be sure to encourage all the meteorite people you know to use this great resource as a first stop for their meteorite interests. Best wishes Doug -Original Message- From: Greg Catterton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 3:28 pm Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA I will state again, from the reports I read, it was supposed to pose a serious health risk to anyone who would have come into contact with it had there been a land impact... that said, I assumed that the same would be for marine life. I felt that if that was the case, it was very reckless of NASA to simply toss it out to fall to earth. Again, I am new to this and do not understand all the things involved. All reports I read stated that several pieces would survive re entry and some would be up to 40-50 lbs... I may not have fully understood the issue, but I do feel some comments directed to me were very insulting. I have stated before I am newer to this and do not understand everything involved. while several of you have been polite and helpful, I am left feeling that certain ones who responded need to be more considerate of people who are new to this and still learning. Its not as if I publicly insulted anyone here and for some of the comments I have recieved I feel are totally uncalled for. I do understand the safety issues involved with returning it to earth, and the costs... none of which was explained in the news reports... that is why I felt NASA was reckless and should be held liable - I was not properly informed and took the reports at face value. --- On Mon, 11/3/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA To: Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Date: Monday, November 3, 2008, 4:11 PM Hi Chris, Listees, It isn't a shade of illegal dumping at issue as far as I can tell. The possibly crass accusations that stated this thread might consider that transporting the old tank in a Space Shuttle back to earth would present a far greater danger to occupants and American residents in the landing path across the USA upon reentry rather than uncontrolled incineration it was given. If you don't believe that, why don't you volunteer for a return flight with that oversized ammonia tank strapped in next to you in the belly of the Shuttle as the 30 year old vehicle starts shaking like hell in a controlled fall your life depends upon in reentry. Even Iron Man might get a cold sweat on that one. There was no safer way, unless you wanted to build a booster for it and blast it off from a mobile launch platform in low earth orbit into the Sun :). Is this a sensible? Best wishes and great health, Doug -Original Message- From: Chris Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 1:52 pm Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA There is established international law dealing with legal liability for damage or injury caused by space debris reaching the ground. All space
Re: [meteorite-list] Help, please
On Mon, 03 Nov 2008 14:28:52 -0800, you wrote: Hi all, I have been receiving multiple emails from one [EMAIL PROTECTED]. These emails consist of offensive And often racist political fear focused propaganda. I have written this person asking who they are and Have gotten no response - the act of a coward in my book. I was wondering if anyone on the list recognizes This email address and knows who it is. If you do, would You please email me off list. I have had it with this. Thanks - and sorry for taking list time, but I THINK I have seen this email address before. Best wishes, Michael Google is your friend! A couple of minutes there, and you could have found this: The e-mail address has one hit-- when you click on the link, it is gone, but the Google summary has this info: JOHN LENNON AUTOGRAPH POSTER I DID NOT SEE JOHN SIGN THIS BUT IT LOOKS RIGHT WHEN COMPARED WITH ONES ON THE INTERNET. CALL CARL 520-979-9865. OR EMAIL [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... That phone number has a few Google hits: http://www.google.com/search?num=100hl=ensafe=offq=520-979-9865btnG=Search Which you can plug in here: http://www.addresses.com/ It is a guy named Carl who lives in Phoenix, or maybe Tuscon. He calls himself meteoritemax according to this page: http://auctions.findtarget.com/detail_product/270280261924/cemetery_plots/ nd-- there is a meteoritemax on Ebay who is named Carl (Carl Esparza) http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=280282104170 __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA
I think it's worth pointing out that this object would not pose a collision risk to anything in space. It would orbit in the vicinity of the ISS while it's altitude slowly decayed. Remember of course that the ISS needs its orbit boosing periodically to prevent it from suffering the same fate. There was no environmental impact from Skylab, Mir or, tragically, Columbia so I don't think a small module is likely to cause too many problems. NASA are an easy target but I think they do a great job considering the political constraints they have to work under. (I suppose I would say that. As a UK citizen, I'm not footing the bill) Rob McCafferty --- On Tue, 11/4/08, Darren Garrison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Darren Garrison [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Space junk - marine life - shame on NASA To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Date: Tuesday, November 4, 2008, 7:06 AM On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 10:41:27 -0800 (PST), you wrote: Ammonia is highly toxic to marine life! Yep, ammonia isn't good for fish. Which is why they are constantly dumping it out of their bodies-- into the water. If some of the ammonia happened to make it to the surface of the ocean, for a few minutes a small area would have a slightly higher concentration, which would quickly diffuse into the general fish-pee background. (Hint-- the ocean is kind of a big place). __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] got what I needed - thanks
Thanks to all those who contacted me, I phoned the guy and believe I will no longer Be receiving his propaganda posts. Thanks for the help. Have a good and SANE voting day. Best wishes, Michael on 11/3/08 2:28 PM, Michael L Blood at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all, I have been receiving multiple emails from one [EMAIL PROTECTED]. These emails consist of offensive And often racist political fear focused propaganda. I have written this person asking who they are and Have gotten no response - the act of a coward in my book. I was wondering if anyone on the list recognizes This email address and knows who it is. If you do, would You please email me off list. I have had it with this. Thanks - and sorry for taking list time, but I THINK I have seen this email address before. Best wishes, Michael __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list Save huge $ on gas mileage: http://go4best.water4gas.hop.clickbank.net/ Info on Govnt. Spending (BEFORE current Bail Out): http://www.michaelbloodmeteorites.com/GvntSpending.htm Totally Green by Twenty Eighteen __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Help, please
Detective Garrison, please report for duty! Google's spooky. - Original Message - From: Darren Garrison [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Michael L Blood [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Meteorite List meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 5:43 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Help, please On Mon, 03 Nov 2008 14:28:52 -0800, you wrote: Hi all, I have been receiving multiple emails from one [EMAIL PROTECTED]. These emails consist of offensive And often racist political fear focused propaganda. I have written this person asking who they are and Have gotten no response - the act of a coward in my book. I was wondering if anyone on the list recognizes This email address and knows who it is. If you do, would You please email me off list. I have had it with this. Thanks - and sorry for taking list time, but I THINK I have seen this email address before. Best wishes, Michael Google is your friend! A couple of minutes there, and you could have found this: The e-mail address has one hit-- when you click on the link, it is gone, but the Google summary has this info: JOHN LENNON AUTOGRAPH POSTER I DID NOT SEE JOHN SIGN THIS BUT IT LOOKS RIGHT WHEN COMPARED WITH ONES ON THE INTERNET. CALL CARL 520-979-9865. OR EMAIL [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... That phone number has a few Google hits: http://www.google.com/search?num=100hl=ensafe=offq=520-979-9865btnG=Search Which you can plug in here: http://www.addresses.com/ It is a guy named Carl who lives in Phoenix, or maybe Tuscon. He calls himself meteoritemax according to this page: http://auctions.findtarget.com/detail_product/270280261924/cemetery_plots/ nd-- there is a meteoritemax on Ebay who is named Carl (Carl Esparza) http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=280282104170 __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] 9.2 gram MILLEN, GA $1NR on ebay
if you need this deep south meteorite, here is a NICE piece, PRICED RIGHT! http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=290272624837ssPageName=ADME:L:LCA:US:1123 __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Impact extinction events accelerate evolution?
Good question Steve, I favor the rate remaining the same scenario. The experiments you suggest have effectively been done that enrich the given mutations in white mice and bacteria strains. Only most forced mutation experiments kill off a whole lot of test subjects and take human lifetimes to enrich mutations into a bloodline but usually are designed to develop a flaw vs an advantage. (I think we now have strains of cannibal barking cockroaches that can live in high methane,low-light-high pressure atmospheres and inside reactor vessels. They aren't good for anything but you can't kill'em off. I believe these may have come from attorney/politian donors--but I digress) As to changing mutation rates and in talking about Cambrian and later extinction events, IMO there is no suggestion that there is an increased mutationrate per se, caused by the extinction event. Extinction events are rooted in multiple causes and only a few of them offer DNA damage potential such as an abnormal sustained gamma ray burst over 1000's of generations or increased ultraviolet energy reaching habitats. The mutation rate would seem to be constant even when evolution of new species is expanding (S. Jay. Gould spoke of punctuated evolution but this supports niche exploitation vs accelerated mutation). For a time after the extinction event,the criticality/consequence of a particular neutral or negative mutation isn't so heavily challenged. With competition reduced to nill, more mutations will be passed along that have no consequence for the time being. As more species fill the niches the apparent rate of evolution, as measured in new species,slows. The jump in radiation of species post event--acceleration of evolution into vacant eco-niches, is more likely owing to the absense of competition pressures from the former niche holders. This results in an ecosystem with a more forgiving, less-consequential challenge for the mutated bloodline. (e.g. having ample food and habitat without the pressure of also having to overcome another creature's advancing mutations, avoiding predators,etc. Simply, when food is ample, most any mouth part will work to scrap it up). Elton --- On Fri, 10/31/08, Steve Dunklee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Steve Dunklee [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [meteorite-list] Impact extinction events accelerate evolution? Was it the repeated impact events in the primordial soup that caused the chemical changes that sparked the creation of life on earth? Current science shows that environmental factors cause mutations in DNA. Instead of being detrimental to life and genetic diversity. Might the repeated impact extinction events ,actually caused an increase in genetic mutations? Or do the mutation rates remain the same? Have there been any studies done where the conditions after an extinction event have been recreated over several generations ,to see if there is an increase in mutations over a control group in small mammals?This would probably require subjecting a group of mice to cold conditions,with a near starvation diet in the dark for several years.and comparing the mutation rate to a control group. and also having a group exposed to high temperatures, a starvation diet and high lighting and low light for comparison of genetic mutation rates. There may already be such studies out there somewhere. If any list member have any links or further information to them ,this troll would appreciate it! Have a great day Steve __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] hobby getting affordable and FUN
11 years ago when i started this hobby with jerry armstrong ANYTHING cool was $100/g to start and pallasites were small and very expensive. now i can get pieces of vesta for $5/g and pallasites by the pound under under $1,000 for a whole rock! what i smokin' time 2 b in the hobby! __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Unusual new lunar or hokum?
Back in 2005 Ted Bunch confirmed this specimen as a 100% meteorite, and he was suppose to classify this meteorite, and publish it. I waited 9 months for classification but Ted never completed it. Since then many tests have been completed to support my classification for this Lunar meteorite specimen. All tests completed offer facts and support for my classification. The Mineral Chemistry End Members, and Isotopic measurements Oxygen Isotopes are all within Lunar Mineralogy, and Lunar Isotopic fields. Geochemists, and Scientists have studied this Lunar Specimen , and they are in agreement with my classification. If you have other questions please feel free to contact me. Mitch Minor office (815)740-3834 cell(815)545-5803 --- On Mon, 11/3/08, Ted Bunch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Ted Bunch [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Unusual new lunar or hokum? To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Date: Monday, November 3, 2008, 4:06 PM Hi Mike - I concur, the whole picture looks strange to me. A 5 ton lunar meteorite in one piece? Where were the O2 analyses done? There are only a few trustworthy labs that can do O2 analyses. In any case, I don't think the reported O2 data are that discriminating between lunar and terrestrial. Some of the mineralogy looks OK, some does not. The plotted major oxide compositional data look impressive for lunar origin, but there are terrestrial mafic compositions that are just as lunar-looking. The hand sample surface is very irregular and looks more like a weathered terrestrial surface than fusion crust. Looks like a duck, walks like a duck, but it doesn't quack like a duck. My advice is to wait until it has been officially classified and/or Randy Korotev has looked it over before buying a piece. I also suggest that the Starchaser group do FeO/MnO ratios on olivine and pyroxene. These ratios are discriminating and can save everyone a lot of trouble. My guess is that this lunar is a glacial erratic from Canada. Buyer beware, Ted Bunch On 11/3/08 7:06 AM, Michael Gilmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Group! I ran across this one on eBay today : http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=350119620351 Something about it doesn't ring true. There is a lot of quasi-scientific mumbo jumbo in the listing. Is this for real or some highly-misinformed individual? Regards, MikeG . Michael Gilmer (Louisiana, USA) Member of the Meteoritical Society. Member of the Bayou Region Stargazers Network. Websites - http://www.galactic-stone.com and http://www.glassthrower.com MySpace - http://www.myspace.com/fine_meteorites_4_sale .. __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] looking for sa's with holes
Hi list.I will be brief.I am looking for a few sikote-alins with holes.Outside of the certain person I am dealing with on this matter,I am looking for a few more.Please offlist with pics,sizes,and Steve R.Arnold,Chicago! http://chicagometeorites.net/ __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] Meteorite Face
Hi All, My new meteorite face reminds me of an alien face from a tv program or film many years back. Anyone else seen this or remember something similar? I just can't recall where I've seen it and yet it seems so familiar...it's been bugging me ever since I saw it. see here http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o43/LaburnumStudio/campos/campoface2.jpg Graham Ensor UK __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] test..please delete
test __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Unusual new lunar or hokum?
Bull shit! My opinion at that time is consistent with what I stated today. See the following e-mail to Minor dated 1/23/07. Find another way to con money! Ted On 11/3/08 5:17 PM, Patricia Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Back in 2005 Ted Bunch confirmed this specimen as a 100% meteorite, and he was suppose to classify this meteorite, and publish it. I waited 9 months for classification but Ted never completed it. Since then many tests have been completed to support my classification for this Lunar meteorite specimen. All tests completed offer facts and support for my classification. The Mineral Chemistry End Members, and Isotopic measurements Oxygen Isotopes are all within Lunar Mineralogy, and Lunar Isotopic fields. Geochemists, and Scientists have studied this Lunar Specimen , and they are in agreement with my classification. If you have other questions please feel free to contact me. Mitch Minor office (815)740-3834 cell(815)545-5803 --- On Mon, 11/3/08, Ted Bunch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Ted Bunch [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Unusual new lunar or hokum? To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Date: Monday, November 3, 2008, 4:06 PM Hi Mike - I concur, the whole picture looks strange to me. A 5 ton lunar meteorite in one piece? Where were the O2 analyses done? There are only a few trustworthy labs that can do O2 analyses. In any case, I don't think the reported O2 data are that discriminating between lunar and terrestrial. Some of the mineralogy looks OK, some does not. The plotted major oxide compositional data look impressive for lunar origin, but there are terrestrial mafic compositions that are just as lunar-looking. The hand sample surface is very irregular and looks more like a weathered terrestrial surface than fusion crust. Looks like a duck, walks like a duck, but it doesn't quack like a duck. My advice is to wait until it has been officially classified and/or Randy Korotev has looked it over before buying a piece. I also suggest that the Starchaser group do FeO/MnO ratios on olivine and pyroxene. These ratios are discriminating and can save everyone a lot of trouble. My guess is that this lunar is a glacial erratic from Canada. Buyer beware, Ted Bunch On 11/3/08 7:06 AM, Michael Gilmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Group! I ran across this one on eBay today : http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=350119620351 Something about it doesn't ring true. There is a lot of quasi-scientific mumbo jumbo in the listing. Is this for real or some highly-misinformed individual? Regards, MikeG . Michael Gilmer (Louisiana, USA) Member of the Meteoritical Society. Member of the Bayou Region Stargazers Network. Websites - http://www.galactic-stone.com and http://www.glassthrower.com MySpace - http://www.myspace.com/fine_meteorites_4_sale .. __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite Face
Looks like Van Gogh, the SCREAM Tom In a message dated 11/3/2008 5:49:06 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi All, My new meteorite face reminds me of an alien face from a tv program or film many years back. Anyone else seen this or remember something similar? I just can't recall where I've seen it and yet it seems so familiar...it's been bugging me ever since I saw it. see here http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o43/LaburnumStudio/campos/campoface2.jpg Graham Ensor UK __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list **Plan your next getaway with AOL Travel. Check out Today's Hot 5 Travel Deals! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/10075x1212416248x1200771803/aol?redir=http://travel.aol.com/discount-travel?ncid=emlcntustrav0001) __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Unusual new lunar or hokum?
If you are mitch minor, then you know very well that this IS NOT lunar material. I forwarded you test results from the material you sent me, which proved to be FAKE lunar material. I also contact the testing placves you provided that also basicly said you were full of it and would not accept what they had to say. One even went as far as to say the testing inoformation you provided was doctored and not in the original form it was when they returned it to you. I trust my testing source 100% and your material IS FAKE. you sir are a con artist at worst, or at best who can not accept the truth. I will call you out here and publicly on this. You sent me 5 grams of lunar material that is not real. You are a liar and a fraud. --- On Mon, 11/3/08, Patricia Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Patricia Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Unusual new lunar or hokum? To: Ted Bunch [EMAIL PROTECTED], Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Date: Monday, November 3, 2008, 7:17 PM Back in 2005 Ted Bunch confirmed this specimen as a 100% meteorite, and he was suppose to classify this meteorite, and publish it. I waited 9 months for classification but Ted never completed it. Since then many tests have been completed to support my classification for this Lunar meteorite specimen. All tests completed offer facts and support for my classification. The Mineral Chemistry End Members, and Isotopic measurements Oxygen Isotopes are all within Lunar Mineralogy, and Lunar Isotopic fields. Geochemists, and Scientists have studied this Lunar Specimen , and they are in agreement with my classification. If you have other questions please feel free to contact me. Mitch Minor office (815)740-3834 cell(815)545-5803 --- On Mon, 11/3/08, Ted Bunch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Ted Bunch [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Unusual new lunar or hokum? To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Date: Monday, November 3, 2008, 4:06 PM Hi Mike - I concur, the whole picture looks strange to me. A 5 ton lunar meteorite in one piece? Where were the O2 analyses done? There are only a few trustworthy labs that can do O2 analyses. In any case, I don't think the reported O2 data are that discriminating between lunar and terrestrial. Some of the mineralogy looks OK, some does not. The plotted major oxide compositional data look impressive for lunar origin, but there are terrestrial mafic compositions that are just as lunar-looking. The hand sample surface is very irregular and looks more like a weathered terrestrial surface than fusion crust. Looks like a duck, walks like a duck, but it doesn't quack like a duck. My advice is to wait until it has been officially classified and/or Randy Korotev has looked it over before buying a piece. I also suggest that the Starchaser group do FeO/MnO ratios on olivine and pyroxene. These ratios are discriminating and can save everyone a lot of trouble. My guess is that this lunar is a glacial erratic from Canada. Buyer beware, Ted Bunch On 11/3/08 7:06 AM, Michael Gilmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Group! I ran across this one on eBay today : http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=350119620351 Something about it doesn't ring true. There is a lot of quasi-scientific mumbo jumbo in the listing. Is this for real or some highly-misinformed individual? Regards, MikeG . Michael Gilmer (Louisiana, USA) Member of the Meteoritical Society. Member of the Bayou Region Stargazers Network. Websites - http://www.galactic-stone.com and http://www.glassthrower.com MySpace - http://www.myspace.com/fine_meteorites_4_sale .. __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite Face
Whoops! But don't you think it looks like the Scream??? Thanks to all for setting me straight. Tom In a message dated 11/3/2008 6:38:44 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: yes, but it's munch---not van gogh. Depth of Field Management 1501 Broadway Suite 1304 New York, New York 10036 212.302.9200 OBAMA! On Nov 3, 2008, at 8:29 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Looks like Van Gogh, the SCREAM Tom In a message dated 11/3/2008 5:49:06 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi All, My new meteorite face reminds me of an alien face from a tv program or film many years back. Anyone else seen this or remember something similar? I just can't recall where I've seen it and yet it seems so familiar...it's been bugging me ever since I saw it. see here http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o43/LaburnumStudio/campos/campoface2.jpg Graham Ensor UK __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list **Plan your next getaway with AOL Travel. Check out Today's Hot 5 Travel Deals! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/10075x1212416248x1200771803/aol?redir=http: //travel.aol.com/discount-travel?ncid=emlcntustrav0001) __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list = **Plan your next getaway with AOL Travel. Check out Today's Hot 5 Travel Deals! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/10075x1212416248x1200771803/aol?redir=http://travel.aol.com/discount-travel?ncid=emlcntustrav0001) __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Unusual new lunar or hokum?
This is NOT true at all!!! I was approached by Mitch Minor quite some time ago to purchase some of his pieces. I knew they were clearly not meteorites but he insisted Ted had said they were. On chatting to Ted he said this was not the case at all and that all the specimens he'd been sent were terrestrial which Mitch was told and then told again after contacting me. This guys indiscretions go back years and is well known to us. Remember the planetary specimens on ebay for hundreds of thousands? Same person! Have a look at Ken's page here: http://meteorite-identification.com/ebay/minor.html http://meteorite-identification.com/ebay/m_minor.html Ohh... and here's a page of Randy Korotev's that mentions Mitch's pieces: http://meteorites.wustl.edu/meteorwrongs/m239.htm Cheers, Jeff Kuyken Meteorites Australia www.meteorites.com.au Director - I.M.C.A. Inc. www.imca.cc - Original Message - From: Patricia Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Ted Bunch [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 11:17 AM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Unusual new lunar or hokum? Back in 2005 Ted Bunch confirmed this specimen as a 100% meteorite, and he was suppose to classify this meteorite, and publish it. I waited 9 months for classification but Ted never completed it. Since then many tests have been completed to support my classification for this Lunar meteorite specimen. All tests completed offer facts and support for my classification. The Mineral Chemistry End Members, and Isotopic measurements Oxygen Isotopes are all within Lunar Mineralogy, and Lunar Isotopic fields. Geochemists, and Scientists have studied this Lunar Specimen , and they are in agreement with my classification. If you have other questions please feel free to contact me. Mitch Minor office (815)740-3834 cell(815)545-5803 --- On Mon, 11/3/08, Ted Bunch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Ted Bunch [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Unusual new lunar or hokum? To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Date: Monday, November 3, 2008, 4:06 PM Hi Mike - I concur, the whole picture looks strange to me. A 5 ton lunar meteorite in one piece? Where were the O2 analyses done? There are only a few trustworthy labs that can do O2 analyses. In any case, I don't think the reported O2 data are that discriminating between lunar and terrestrial. Some of the mineralogy looks OK, some does not. The plotted major oxide compositional data look impressive for lunar origin, but there are terrestrial mafic compositions that are just as lunar-looking. The hand sample surface is very irregular and looks more like a weathered terrestrial surface than fusion crust. Looks like a duck, walks like a duck, but it doesn't quack like a duck. My advice is to wait until it has been officially classified and/or Randy Korotev has looked it over before buying a piece. I also suggest that the Starchaser group do FeO/MnO ratios on olivine and pyroxene. These ratios are discriminating and can save everyone a lot of trouble. My guess is that this lunar is a glacial erratic from Canada. Buyer beware, Ted Bunch On 11/3/08 7:06 AM, Michael Gilmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Group! I ran across this one on eBay today : http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=350119620351 Something about it doesn't ring true. There is a lot of quasi-scientific mumbo jumbo in the listing. Is this for real or some highly-misinformed individual? Regards, MikeG . Michael Gilmer (Louisiana, USA) Member of the Meteoritical Society. Member of the Bayou Region Stargazers Network. Websites - http://www.galactic-stone.com and http://www.glassthrower.com MySpace - http://www.myspace.com/fine_meteorites_4_sale .. __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Unusual new lunar or hokum?
Mitch, Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. We would like to SEE the proof and I would like the following conflicts resolved to win me over. You could foreclose all the nay saying and skeptics by resolving the following conflicts: Six+ conflicts in your claims for the Illinois Lunarite are incompatible within your own claims and suggest this is other than a lunar meteorite. 1. One matching plot out of 8+ graphs isn't proof--in fact it is disqualifying. I can find something somewhere to plot any two substances together with some shared feature. Minus 1 2. Lunar Isotopic Oxygen Plot Match... Those would be the same as terrestrial plots owing to the Earth-Moon common origin. This match proves only that they originated in the local neighborhood. This doesn't rule out a slag pile in South Chicago and it doesn't rule in the moon. 0/ Neutral 3. The main mass size you've claimed couldn't physically exist for a meteorite found on earth. There is an envelope of maximum object size that can be launched from the lunar surface via impact that 1) does not melt due to acceleration energies YET 2) have enough mass to survive transit of the atmosphere. That envelope accommodates a original mass of a few kilograms not a few tons. Bonus points lost in that your petrological content doesn't include shock induced masklenite/glass. Minus 2 and also disqualifying. 4. It is 99.9% improbable to have a valid lunar specimen which is an all inclusive, collective petrology, commingled conglomeration, that contains virtually every single petrological type found in lunar meteorites known to science. The glaring exception would be a melt pile assembled by aliens in a anti-gravity experiment gone arye. Minus 1-- Practically impossible so practically disqualifying. 5 Two legitimate, proven, qualified, do-it-for-a-living-professional experts on meteorites (who are also list members) have passed judgment on your material, while you have yet to reveal the researchers who did your analysis along with their complete reports. Minus 2 Pretty much disqualifying in my book. 6. Why haven't you dated the material if you've done all the other extensive testing? Why leave out the one test that would prove a date more inline with lunar ages? Minus 1 7. Why can't you get anyone to come forward to defend your claim and sponsor it before the NonCom Committee. Frankly, every planetary scientist in the world would want a chance at that rock given its exotic preliminary classification. The only thing you didn't claim was antraxite content with fossil life forms--Otherwise, you'd have the perfect and complete meteorite-plus collection in a single specimen. Minus 1 If you are keeping score: Plus 0, Neutral 1, Minus 8. This cannot be a lunar meteorie nor any planetary meteorite--it is not a chondrite so unless you can underpin your claims with something such as an absolute formation age from 100,000 to 300,000 to 4.3± billion years, it can't be a meteorite-- period. Skeptically but honestly submited Elton On 11/3/08 5:17 PM, Patricia Harris aka Mitch Minor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Back in 2005 Ted Bunch confirmed this specimen as a 100% meteorite, and he wasmsuppose to classify this meteorite, and publish it. I waited 9 months for classification but Ted never completed it. Since then many tests have been completed to support my classification for this Lunar meteorite specimen. All tests completed offer facts and support for my classification. The Mineral Chemistry End Members, and Isotopic measurements Oxygen Isotopes are all within Lunar Mineralogy, and Lunar Isotopic fields. Geochemists, and Scientists have studied this Lunar Specimen , and they are in agreement with my classification. If you have other questions please feel free to contact me. Mitch Minor office (815)740-3834 cell(815)545-5803 __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] SALE ESTHERVILLE METEORITE Mesosiderite 31.0gm
Hello List Members, I hope everyone is having a Great week! I have a very nice Estherville 31.0 grams Mesosiderite with beautiful metal and a matrix of olivine that ends this Sunday November 9, at 19:20:09 pm Pacific time. It comes with a great looking membrane clear display box and I'm paying for the shipping by USPS Priority mail anywhere in the US. Normal shipping rates apply outside the US. http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemrd=1item=280282141040ssPageName=STRK:MESE:ITih=018 Thanks for looking. Brian Cox searchingforfun on ebay IMCA # 6387 __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Unusual new lunar or hokum?
Here's an appropriate news item: http://www.thanhniennews.com/society/?catid=3newsid=43452 http://www.thanhniennews.com/society/?catid=3newsid=43452 Best, Pete Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 20:14:15 -0800 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Unusual new lunar or hokum? Mitch, Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. We would like to SEE the proof and I would like the following conflicts resolved to win me over. You could foreclose all the nay saying and skeptics by resolving the following conflicts: Six+ conflicts in your claims for the Illinois Lunarite are incompatible within your own claims and suggest this is other than a lunar meteorite. 1. One matching plot out of 8+ graphs isn't proof--in fact it is disqualifying. I can find something somewhere to plot any two substances together with some shared feature. Minus 1 2. Lunar Isotopic Oxygen Plot Match... Those would be the same as terrestrial plots owing to the Earth-Moon common origin. This match proves only that they originated in the local neighborhood. This doesn't rule out a slag pile in South Chicago and it doesn't rule in the moon. 0/ Neutral 3. The main mass size you've claimed couldn't physically exist for a meteorite found on earth. There is an envelope of maximum object size that can be launched from the lunar surface via impact that 1) does not melt due to acceleration energies YET 2) have enough mass to survive transit of the atmosphere. That envelope accommodates a original mass of a few kilograms not a few tons. Bonus points lost in that your petrological content doesn't include shock induced masklenite/glass. Minus 2 and also disqualifying. 4. It is 99.9% improbable to have a valid lunar specimen which is an all inclusive, collective petrology, commingled conglomeration, that contains virtually every single petrological type found in lunar meteorites known to science. The glaring exception would be a melt pile assembled by aliens in a anti-gravity experiment gone arye. Minus 1-- Practically impossible so practically disqualifying. 5 Two legitimate, proven, qualified, do-it-for-a-living-professional experts on meteorites (who are also list members) have passed judgment on your material, while you have yet to reveal the researchers who did your analysis along with their complete reports. Minus 2 Pretty much disqualifying in my book. 6. Why haven't you dated the material if you've done all the other extensive testing? Why leave out the one test that would prove a date more inline with lunar ages? Minus 1 7. Why can't you get anyone to come forward to defend your claim and sponsor it before the NonCom Committee. Frankly, every planetary scientist in the world would want a chance at that rock given its exotic preliminary classification. The only thing you didn't claim was antraxite content with fossil life forms--Otherwise, you'd have the perfect and complete meteorite-plus collection in a single specimen. Minus 1 If you are keeping score: Plus 0, Neutral 1, Minus 8. This cannot be a lunar meteorie nor any planetary meteorite--it is not a chondrite so unless you can underpin your claims with something such as an absolute formation age from 100,000 to 300,000 to 4.3± billion years, it can't be a meteorite-- period. Skeptically but honestly submited Elton On 11/3/08 5:17 PM, Patricia Harris aka Mitch Minor wrote: Back in 2005 Ted Bunch confirmed this specimen as a 100% meteorite, and he wasmsuppose to classify this meteorite, and publish it. I waited 9 months for classification but Ted never completed it. Since then many tests have been completed to support my classification for this Lunar meteorite specimen. All tests completed offer facts and support for my classification. The Mineral Chemistry End Members, and Isotopic measurements Oxygen Isotopes are all within Lunar Mineralogy, and Lunar Isotopic fields. Geochemists, and Scientists have studied this Lunar Specimen , and they are in agreement with my classification. If you have other questions please feel free to contact me. Mitch Minor office (815)740-3834 cell(815)545-5803 __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list _ __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
