Re: [meteorite-list] FW: Re: Kalahari Lunar
Hi, This has all probably been on the list before...but I was not following it at the time...so have these lunar meteorites just disappeared without trace? Has anyone ever seen photographs of the main masses and where are they now.? Have any pieces come on to the market ever? Graham Ensor, nr Barwell UK Sterling K. Webb wrote: Hi, I recall, but cannot find in the archives (too long ago) of the List, a thread that batted back and forth rumors about Kalahari 008 and 009 having been found elsewhere and having been planted in the Kalahari. It was vague, certainly speculative, and nobody claimed to have come up with the inside scoop. http://www.uni-muenster.de/imperia/md/content/planetologie/pdf/bischoff/meteorites_from_botswana.pdf says In 1999, the first meteorites from Botswana were recovered. Most samples (seven) were purchased from natives in the small village of Kuke. We suggest that these samples were found close to Kuke in the Kalahari desert. As reported by the finder, the other four samples were recovered during geological field work in various areas of Botswana in April (Mabe), September (Kalahari 008 and 009), and November 1999 (Matisama). Kalahari 008 and Kalahari 009 were found close to the small village of Kuke and are chemically and petrographically different lunar rocks. However, we suggest that both samples represent distinct lithologies of one meteoroid and that the lunar sample broke apart at the find site. The other nine samples are H-group ordinary chondrites. Based on different petrologic types, the degrees of shock metamorphism and weathering pairing of most samples can be ruled out. We conclude that only Kalahari 004 and Kalahari 005 are paired. So, there were many other meteorites (H) that came from the Kuke area initially and were offered for sale. It would seem that the finder then searched the area further and found four more, including the lunar duo. http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/metsoc2005/pdf/5059.pdf Two of these samples were found close to the small village of Kuke (Kalahari 008 and Kalahari 009) and are chemically and petrographically different lunar rocks. However, it is suggested that both samples represent distinct lithologies of one meteoroid that broke apart at the find site... During geological field work Kalahari 008 and 009 were found roughly 50 m apart in front of a small dune in September 1999. http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/metsoc2005/pdf/5270.pdf says: The combined 26Al and 36Cl 4pi exposure ages are 350±120 yr for Kalahari 008 and 220±40 yr for Kalahari 009 that is the shortest exposure age of any meteorite. If both objects are lunar meteorites, the transition time from the Moon to the earth was 230±90 yr and ejection depth was more than 1,100 g/cm2 on the Moon. Small amounts of cosmogenic nuclides are also produced in-situ on the Earth's surface. The 26Al and 36Cl concentrations in Kalahari 009 can be explained by ~0.3 Myr exposure time in the Kalahari Desert (1,000 m elevation and 21°S). Long terrestrial ages, 0.3-0.5 Myr, were found for Dhofar lunar and Martian meteorites... For the case of Kalahari 009, cosmogenic nuclides could have been produced on the Earth's surface, without previous exposure in space. Cosmogenic nuclide results do not exclude that Kalahari 009 is a terrestrial object. However, the 36Cl concentration in Kalahari 008 is ~15% higher than saturation of 36Cl production on the Earth's surface, therefore Kalahari 008 was exposed in space. So, if I wanted to plant a 30-pound chuck of the Moon in Botswana or anywhere else, like my back yard, where would I go to get one? Inquiring minds want to know... Sterling K. Webb --- - Original Message - From: Michael Farmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; meteorite list meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 7:18 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] FW: Re: Kalahari Lunar I have heard that this area would be nearly impossible to find meteorites. It is clear that they are not from that area. Michael Farmer --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Randy and List, Last July Chauncey Walden and I drove all the way around the reported find location of these Kalahari Lunars. This part of the Central Kalahari Nature Reserve (national not private) is not a sandy desert like those far to the north or the Namib to the west. In this location is the ground is almost totally covered in knee high grass and scattered trees. We did not see any igneous rocks in this area in fact there are not many rocks of any type in this area. If I remember correctly it is part of the worlds largest body of sand. So any rock would look odd and stand out. I know it was totally different from what I had envisioned and hoped for. Tough area to hunt meteorites. Much better for photographing lions and cheetah. Regards, Fred Olsen, Denver
[meteorite-list] FW: Re: Kalahari Lunar
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Randy and List, Last July Chauncey Walden and I drove all the way around the reported find location of these Kalahari Lunars. This part of the Central Kalahari Nature Reserve (national not private) is not a sandy desert like those far to the north or the Namib to the west. In this location is the ground is almost totally covered in knee high grass and scattered trees. We did not see any igneous rocks in this area in fact there are not many rocks of any type in this area. If I remember correctly it is part of the worlds largest body of sand. So any rock would look odd and stand out. I know it was totally different from what I had envisioned and hoped for. Tough area to hunt meteorites. Much better for photographing lions and cheetah. Regards, Fred Olsen, Denver __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] FW: Re: Kalahari Lunar
I have heard that this area would be nearly impossible to find meteorites. It is clear that they are not from that area. Michael Farmer --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Randy and List, Last July Chauncey Walden and I drove all the way around the reported find location of these Kalahari Lunars. This part of the Central Kalahari Nature Reserve (national not private) is not a sandy desert like those far to the north or the Namib to the west. In this location is the ground is almost totally covered in knee high grass and scattered trees. We did not see any igneous rocks in this area in fact there are not many rocks of any type in this area. If I remember correctly it is part of the worlds largest body of sand. So any rock would look odd and stand out. I know it was totally different from what I had envisioned and hoped for. Tough area to hunt meteorites. Much better for photographing lions and cheetah. Regards, Fred Olsen, Denver __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] FW: Re: Kalahari Lunar
Hi, I recall, but cannot find in the archives (too long ago) of the List, a thread that batted back and forth rumors about Kalahari 008 and 009 having been found elsewhere and having been planted in the Kalahari. It was vague, certainly speculative, and nobody claimed to have come up with the inside scoop. http://www.uni-muenster.de/imperia/md/content/planetologie/pdf/bischoff/meteorites_from_botswana.pdf says In 1999, the first meteorites from Botswana were recovered. Most samples (seven) were purchased from natives in the small village of Kuke. We suggest that these samples were found close to Kuke in the Kalahari desert. As reported by the finder, the other four samples were recovered during geological field work in various areas of Botswana in April (Mabe), September (Kalahari 008 and 009), and November 1999 (Matisama). Kalahari 008 and Kalahari 009 were found close to the small village of Kuke and are chemically and petrographically different lunar rocks. However, we suggest that both samples represent distinct lithologies of one meteoroid and that the lunar sample broke apart at the find site. The other nine samples are H-group ordinary chondrites. Based on different petrologic types, the degrees of shock metamorphism and weathering pairing of most samples can be ruled out. We conclude that only Kalahari 004 and Kalahari 005 are paired. So, there were many other meteorites (H) that came from the Kuke area initially and were offered for sale. It would seem that the finder then searched the area further and found four more, including the lunar duo. http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/metsoc2005/pdf/5059.pdf Two of these samples were found close to the small village of Kuke (Kalahari 008 and Kalahari 009) and are chemically and petrographically different lunar rocks. However, it is suggested that both samples represent distinct lithologies of one meteoroid that broke apart at the find site... During geological field work Kalahari 008 and 009 were found roughly 50 m apart in front of a small dune in September 1999. http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/metsoc2005/pdf/5270.pdf says: The combined 26Al and 36Cl 4pi exposure ages are 350±120 yr for Kalahari 008 and 220±40 yr for Kalahari 009 that is the shortest exposure age of any meteorite. If both objects are lunar meteorites, the transition time from the Moon to the earth was 230±90 yr and ejection depth was more than 1,100 g/cm2 on the Moon. Small amounts of cosmogenic nuclides are also produced in-situ on the Earth's surface. The 26Al and 36Cl concentrations in Kalahari 009 can be explained by ~0.3 Myr exposure time in the Kalahari Desert (1,000 m elevation and 21°S). Long terrestrial ages, 0.3-0.5 Myr, were found for Dhofar lunar and Martian meteorites... For the case of Kalahari 009, cosmogenic nuclides could have been produced on the Earth's surface, without previous exposure in space. Cosmogenic nuclide results do not exclude that Kalahari 009 is a terrestrial object. However, the 36Cl concentration in Kalahari 008 is ~15% higher than saturation of 36Cl production on the Earth's surface, therefore Kalahari 008 was exposed in space. So, if I wanted to plant a 30-pound chuck of the Moon in Botswana or anywhere else, like my back yard, where would I go to get one? Inquiring minds want to know... Sterling K. Webb --- - Original Message - From: Michael Farmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; meteorite list meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 7:18 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] FW: Re: Kalahari Lunar I have heard that this area would be nearly impossible to find meteorites. It is clear that they are not from that area. Michael Farmer --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Randy and List, Last July Chauncey Walden and I drove all the way around the reported find location of these Kalahari Lunars. This part of the Central Kalahari Nature Reserve (national not private) is not a sandy desert like those far to the north or the Namib to the west. In this location is the ground is almost totally covered in knee high grass and scattered trees. We did not see any igneous rocks in this area in fact there are not many rocks of any type in this area. If I remember correctly it is part of the worlds largest body of sand. So any rock would look odd and stand out. I know it was totally different from what I had envisioned and hoped for. Tough area to hunt meteorites. Much better for photographing lions and cheetah. Regards, Fred Olsen, Denver __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
