[meteorite-list] Meteorite Picture of the Day
Today's Meteorite Picture of the Day: Foum El Hisn Contributed by: Gourgues Denis http://www.tucsonmeteorites.com/mpodmain.asp __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://three.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite Sculpture by Katie Paterson
Paul Thanks for this. I have seen this particular cartoon, and some similar ones, before. It doesn't quite respond to what I said below, dealing as it does with the notion of art as commodity. It is a kind of short, cartoon version of the story of The Emperor's New Clothes. It does however express the way I personally feel about the art business (for that is what it surely is today) in that the value of any piece often seems to be in inverse proportion to its artistic merit (if any) and reflects what only a few, select people define as cutting edge or important. Thereby sending its valuation through the roof, while other artists struggle to survive. In the longer term, art critics, dealers and writers (as well as the public) will assess things differently based on the cultural milieu of the time. After all, in 1930's Germany, Hitler and the Nazi Party became the de facto arbiters of taste condemning many artists and their work (in all the fields of artist endeavour) as entartete Ku nst (degenerate art) and confining their work to the bonfire and forcing the artists to comply or to flee. We now consider the work of these artists, musicians and writers as very important - maybe in a hundred years we will take a different view. Cheers Peter Davidson Senior Curator of Minerals National Museums Collection Centre 242 West Granton Road Edinburgh EH5 1JA 00 44 131 247 4283 p.david...@nms.ac.uk -Original Message- From: Meteorite-list [mailto:meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com] On Behalf Of Paul Swartz via Meteorite-list Sent: 06 August 2014 16:36 To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Subject: [meteorite-list] Meteorite Sculpture by Katie Paterson Here's an artistic take on that sentiment http://www.pinterest.com/pin/280419514268664191/ cheers paul swartz imca 5204 mpod web master (help! send pictures) I have always believed that it one of the purposes of art (among many other things) to challenge, shock and discomfort people and ideas by presenting the familiar in a new and unfamiliar way - to make people rethink their ideas and to challenge them to take stock of their old values. __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://three.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list Discover the treasures of China's Ming dynasty at the National Museum of Scotland. Ming: The Golden Empire, 27 June-19 October 2014, www.nms.ac.uk/ming National Museums Scotland, Scottish Charity, No. SC 011130 This communication is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you are not the addressee please inform the sender and delete the email from your system. The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of National Museums Scotland. This message is subject to the Data Protection Act 1998 and Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002. No liability is accepted for any harm that may be caused to your systems or data by this message. __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://three.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite Sculpture by Katie Paterson
Graham It is really good to hear from you again. Hopefully it won't be too long until we can get together for a wee chat. I don't think Katie has set out to shock people with this work. Although I have to say when I first heard about this project way back in 2010, I was actually shocked or at least surprised. In the end, as a curator, I am appalled by the thought of any original work, be it an artefact or a natural object, being destroyed or cut up in this way for financial or artistic reasons. But as I thought more about it and actually spoke to Katie about her work, I felt more comfortable about it. Whatever Katie thought the reaction might be, and the mailings we have had on this list give some idea, she has certainly caused people in the meteorite collectors world to sit up and take notice. I myself only put out my original message as a way of defending an artist I know and whose work does really interest me, but I have found the responses to be quite stimulating and varied. We are often quick (too quick sometimes) to criticise artists and their work and, to be honest, it is sometimes well deserve d. I would only urge people to look at the entire corpus of an artist's work before you condemn it. Nevertheless, we all have a right, indeed a duty, to express our honest opinion(s) about any work of art whether it be painting, sculpture, writing or music. As an artist yourself, I am sure you would at least accept criticism if it was honestly and sincerely expressed, rather than say being criticised because you're not one of the in crowd. On Saturday, I attended a gallery talk in Edinburgh given by Katie and had the opportunity to see and handle the work for myself. To be fair, Katie has made no attempt to disguise the recast meteorites as real meteorites - they are clearly what they are. So they cannot be called reproductions as they not seeking to fool or mislead anyone into thinking that they are genuine. You are right to say that as people interested in meteorites because of their science, we find it shocking and disconcerting to see an object like this reworked in this way. Yet, it happens all the time. When I visited Tucson in February, the city was also hosting an arts festival and near the hotel I was staying at there were a number of interesting sculptures made from old cars and pick-ups. Do vintage car enthusiasts feel the same way about the re-imagining of these vehicles when with a little bit of TLC, they could have been restored to their original state? To me, the old saying still holds true: beauty is in the eye of the beholder. These amazing works, which illustrate both the inventiveness and the wastefulness of humans, were both beautiful and slightly disturbing - but I guess that is what the artist wanted us to feel. Anyway I am going to stop rambling on now. Are you planning to visit Munich this year? The theme is meteorites and I am quite eager with anticipation about what will be on show. Cheers Peter Davidson Senior Curator of Minerals National Museums Collection Centre 242 West Granton Road Edinburgh EH5 1JA 00 44 131 247 4283 p.david...@nms.ac.uk -Original Message- From: Graham Ensor [mailto:graham.en...@gmail.com] Sent: 05 August 2014 20:40 To: Peter Davidson Cc: Meteorite List (meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com) Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite Sculpture by Katie Paterson Hi Peter/allAs an artist myself working on more unusual projects with the Arts Council trying to find new ways of expressing ideas...trying to stretch the boundaries and asking what is art?...etc. I find this an interesting topic...I'm all for art doing what you say...but have a slight conflict here, being a meteorite collector and using much of what I know and see in meteoritics as inspiration for some of my own projectsthere are so many at the moment just making/doing art to shock...and I don't really think that that is enough personallyand to be honest I'm not sure what she is doing is really very original...many artists have destroyed and rebuilt objects as themselves in the past in various waysto me she is not making people think about the wonder of the object, where it comes from etc...it's more about herselfand her practice. Now if she had prepared the meteorite in such a way to show off its wonder, or even just exhibited it in a gallery as is...rather than in a museum...then that would have asked far more questions about what art is, or what the object means...the recasting is not so much about the object...it is far more about the process and her own practiceI feel she has said far less by recasting itbut I suppose that's what art is aboutit's more about the questions that a piece is asking than the answer. Not sure what destroying something and remaking it in its own image and then sending it back to whence it came (partly) is really saying.only those who are wise about meteorites actually
Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite Sculpture by Katie Paterson
Daniel No argument from me that we should leave the original entirely as it was found, no matter what that object is. Yet, we see and read about this happening all the time. Across the northern part of England (and I mean England here and not the UK), the Romans built a large structure (it is, or was, about 120km long and reached a height of 3.5m) which has become known as Hadrian's Wall. It purpose was to mark the boundary of the Roman Empire at that time as well as act as a defensive barrier to keep those nasty Scots out (it failed and we got through easily enough!). Yet as soon as the Romans left, the local populace began to plunder and remove its finely wrought stonework for use as building stone. From our viewpoint in 2014, we are rightly appalled that this wonderful work has been plundered and destroyed to be remade into farm buildings and walls. Yet, who are we to criticise these people for utilising such a wonderful, ready-made supply of cut stone in order to enhance their lives (believe me life in that part of Britain would have been very hard - it still is)? Also are we right to criticise the Inuit for using metal taken from the Cape York meteorite (and possibly others as well) to fashion into harpoons and tools or indeed the ancient Egyptians for collecting Libyan desert glass to create jewellery for the Pharaohs? Cheers Peter Davidson Senior Curator of Minerals National Museums Collection Centre 242 West Granton Road Edinburgh EH5 1JA 00 44 131 247 4283 p.david...@nms.ac.uk -Original Message- From: Meteorite-list [mailto:meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com] On Behalf Of Daniel Noyes via Meteorite-list Sent: 06 August 2014 17:33 To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite Sculpture by Katie Paterson Hi Graham, Peter and All, I would agree that art can be a means to challenge existing concepts and perceptions. I think the rub in this instance is the recasting of the meteorite, nature's art, into its own image; a human generated meteorite clone so to speak. To re-create it into something more removed from itself would stretch the creative boundary. If one were to melt down an original Remington bronze sculpture and recast it as itself, does that really challenge artistic expression, and how is that different that the cheap after versions that one can buy that are imitations of the Remington original? Given the choice between an original work of art and its imitation, I'll take the original every time. I'm not saying there isn't some value in what Katie did, but I think the genuine meteorite would be more worthy of a trip to the space station... Best regards, Daniel Daniel Noyes Genuine Moon Mars Meteorite Rocks i...@moonmarsrocks.com www.moonmarsrocks.com Original Message Message: 6 Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2014 20:40:22 +0100 From: Graham Ensor graham.en...@gmail.com To: Peter Davidson p.david...@nms.ac.uk Cc: Meteorite List \(meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com\) meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite Sculpture by Katie Paterson Message-ID: cajkn+kyzojk+oqsty--esrnqyevjdklls0tzyww+nj+c9fr...@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Hi Peter/alas an artist myself working on more unusual projects with the Arts Council trying to find new ways of expressing ideas...trying to stretch the boundaries and asking what is art?...etc. I find this an interesting topic...I'm all for art doing what you say...but have a slight conflict here, being a meteorite collector and using much of what I know and see in meteoritics as inspiration for some of my own projectsthere are so many at the moment just making/doing art to shock...and I don't really think that that is enough personallyand to be honest I'm not sure what she is doing is really very original...many artists have destroyed and rebuilt objects as themselves in the past in various waysto me she is not making people think about the wonder of the object, where it comes from etc...it's more about herselfand her practice. Now if she had prepared the meteorite in such a way to show off its wonder, or even just exhibited it in a gallery as is...rather than in a museum...then that would have asked far more questions about what art is, or what the object means...the recasting is not so much about the object...it is far more about the process and her own practiceI feel she has said far less by recasting itbut I suppose that's what art is aboutit's more about the questions that a piece is asking than the answer. Not sure what destroying something and remaking it in its own image and then sending it back to whence it came (partly) is really saying.only those who are wise about meteorites actually understand what aspects of the object she has destroyedmost of the general public/other artists etc. will see the object as unchanged! Graham
Re: [meteorite-list] How Many Meteorites Fall Each Year?
Hi Sterling, Anne and all, I couldn't find much on the fall rate in Sterling's link, but did a search on the meteorite central site and came up with a lot of results for those who want to pursue fall rates. Link below. Best! http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com/cgi-bin/search/search.cgi?zoom_sort=0zoom_xml=0zoom_query=Meteorite+Fall+rateszoom_per_page=10zoom_and=0 --AL Mitterling Mitterling Meteorites Quoting Sterling K. Webb via Meteorite-list meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com: Dear Anne, Al, List, A long post on the question of how many meteorites fall each year was posted to The Meteorite List back in the year 2000. It can be found at: http://archive.today/Yx4Fc From that post, you can follow the thread forward and backward if you want to read all the discussion. There was quite a bit of discussion, as I recall. It gives the figures from the Canadian MORP study and other sources, as well as discussing methods of calculating the fall rate. Sterling Webb -Original Message- From: Meteorite-list [mailto:meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com] On Behalf Of almitt2--- via Meteorite-list Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2014 8:19 PM To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] GA NC TN AL KY Meteor Approx 2320 EDT //2220 CDT 02AUG2014 Hi Anne and all, There are many scientifically calculated fall rates. Most assume meteorites that have landed are 100 grams or larger as those are deemed more findable. A Canadian study estimated some 21,000 falls per year. We loose 3/4 in the oceans, leaving some 6,000 to land on dry land. Many of those land in remote areas away from the notice of people. Higher populations usually result in the notice of more falls. Light pollution probably reduces that number some. Of all the falls, only 0.1% or about 5 to 6 falls per year are actually collected. The 1933 year was an excellent year for recovery of falls. 17 meteorites of the potential fall total were recovered! According to this Canadian study we are really no better at recovery of falls than we were in the past. Even though meteorite falls are better understood than in the past. It is important to keep this in mind as there are many unlocated falls all over the world. Source for some of this information: Canadian fireball rates and meteorite falls - declining returns by Martin Beech Campion College, The University of Regina, Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada --AL Mitterling Mitterling Meteorites __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://three.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite Sculpture by Katie Paterson
Ok, so now I have to give my two cents...sense! I too do artwork involving meteorites, love the hunt, and collecting. I might note that no meteorite was harmed in the making of my work! (I don't even like the idea of slicing one into pieces, but that is my own issue, and it is done every day, and I own slices of them too!) There are a few questions to ask, that if these found items are raised up to a level that, we as creatures with opposable thumbs and conscience thought, elevate them to the point of greater importance, then has meteorites become something of worship for modern day society? If so, then what right do any of us have to claim ownership? Do they all belong in museums? What good does that one on your desk, shelf or locked up in the climate controlled safe do to the greater good, or is that self-indulgence at its finest, or just for profit? I suppose that if ownership is the case, then we are by right able to do whatever we desire, as it then belongs to the owner to keep or shape into any existence we see fit. If for profit, then what does it matter what the new owner does? Some questions that cross my mind are, What is the purpose in this artwork and the end result?. I haven't read the full artist statement on this direct subject, but have visited her website, and her work is very interesting, and consummate. So...Since this has developed into a long discussion with many views, that expand across the continents, then the artist has accomplished a great deal of awareness on the topic, and on the meteorite community and public. That is very difficult artistic task, so this is a success in many ways! Then the next question is does this artwork make a change, or create awareness. My answer to this is yes! So, even though I cannot bring myself to intentionally manipulate a meteorite to the point it is in a completely new form, I have to think her conceptual ideas are a success, and my meager attempts at education and awareness thru artistic means needs to be revisited. And that too has created a self-awareness in myself, and will create change. So, by right, I feel her work has done what art is truly about, and that is to create change in some form, be it reaction, action or conscience, be it to conserve or preserve the natural state moving forward, success! Best Regards, Laura Atkins Art is the highest task and proper metaphysical activity of this life. - Nietzsche -Original Message- From: Meteorite-list [mailto:meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com] On Behalf Of Peter Davidson via Meteorite-list Sent: Thursday, August 7, 2014 5:21 AM To: 'i...@moonmarsrocks.com' Cc: Meteorite List (meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com) Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite Sculpture by Katie Paterson Daniel No argument from me that we should leave the original entirely as it was found, no matter what that object is. Yet, we see and read about this happening all the time. Across the northern part of England (and I mean England here and not the UK), the Romans built a large structure (it is, or was, about 120km long and reached a height of 3.5m) which has become known as Hadrian's Wall. It purpose was to mark the boundary of the Roman Empire at that time as well as act as a defensive barrier to keep those nasty Scots out (it failed and we got through easily enough!). Yet as soon as the Romans left, the local populace began to plunder and remove its finely wrought stonework for use as building stone. From our viewpoint in 2014, we are rightly appalled that this wonderful work has been plundered and destroyed to be remade into farm buildings and walls. Yet, who are we to criticise these people for utilising such a wonderful, ready-made supply of cut stone in order to enhance their lives (believe me life in that part of Britain would have been very hard - it still is)? Also are we right to criticise the Inuit for using metal taken from the Cape York meteorite (and possibly others as well) to fashion into harpoons and tools or indeed the ancient Egyptians for collecting Libyan desert glass to create jewellery for the Pharaohs? Cheers Peter Davidson Senior Curator of Minerals National Museums Collection Centre 242 West Granton Road Edinburgh EH5 1JA 00 44 131 247 4283 p.david...@nms.ac.uk -Original Message- From: Meteorite-list [mailto:meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com] On Behalf Of Daniel Noyes via Meteorite-list Sent: 06 August 2014 17:33 To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite Sculpture by Katie Paterson Hi Graham, Peter and All, I would agree that art can be a means to challenge existing concepts and perceptions. I think the rub in this instance is the recasting of the meteorite, nature's art, into its own image; a human generated meteorite clone so to speak. To re-create it into something more removed from itself would stretch the creative boundary. If one were to melt down an original Remington bronze
[meteorite-list] Mars Rover Opportunity Update: July 23-30, 2014
OPPORTUNITY UPDATE: Opportunity Holds the Off-Earth Driving Distance Record
- sols 3731-3738, July 23, 2014-July 30, 2014:
Opportunity has driven more than 25 miles (40 kilometers) and is now the
off-Earth driving distance record holder!
Opportunity is moving south along the west rim of Endeavour Crater heading
towards 'Marathon Valley.' This valley has been observed from orbit to
have an abundant clay mineral signature.
On Sol 3732 (July 24, 2014) the rover continued south with a 236 feet
(72-meter) drive, collecting Panoramic Camera (Pancam) images before,
during and after the drive along with a post-drive Navigation Camera (Navcam)
panorama. On the following sol, Opportunity collected an InSIGHT atmospheric
opacity (tau) measurement. On Sol 3734 (July 26, 2014), the rover began
the first sol of a two-sol 'touch go'. On the first sol, Opportunity
collected a Microscopic Imager (MI) mosaic of the surface target 'Rosebud
Canyon,' then placed the Alpha Particle X-ray Spectrometer on the same
for a multi-hour integration ('the Touch'). On the second sol, the rover
drove south over 157 feet (48 meters) ('The Go'). With that drive, Opportunity
crossed the 25-mile mark of distance on the surface. The rover has established
herself as the record holder for the longest distance driven off the Earth.
On Sol 3737 (July 29, 2014), the science team chose to return to an interesting
target about 30 meters to the north for further investigation and documentation.
As of Sol 3738 (July 30, 2014), the solar array energy production was
686 watt-hours with an atmospheric opacity (Tau) of 0.804 and a solar
array dust factor of 0.813.
Total odometry is 25.03 miles (40.28 kilometers).
__
Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://three.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] Mars Rover Opportunity Update: July 31 - August 5, 2014
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mer/mission/status.html#opportunity OPPORTUNITY UPDATE: Opportunity Heads to 'Marathon Valley' - sols 3739-3744, July 31, 2014-August 05, 2014: Opportunity is moving south along the west rim of Endeavour Crater heading towards 'Marathon Valley,' a notch observed from orbit to have an abundant clay mineral signature. On Sol 3739 (July 31, 2014), the rover made an approach to a surface target of interest with a 26-feet (8-meter) drive. At the end of the sol, Opportunity collected some Panoramic Camera (Pancam) imagery and performed an atmospheric argon measurement with the Alpha Particle X-ray Spectrometer (APXS). On Sol 3741 (Aug. 2, 2014), the rover began two sols of in-situ (contact) science using the robotic arm instruments. On the first sol Opportunity collected a Microscopic Imager (MI) mosaic of the target 'Fairweather,' and then placed the APXS for a multi-hour integration. On the next sol, the observations were repeated on a second, offset target. With the in-situ work complete, the rover headed south again on Sol 3744 (Aug. 5, 2014), driving over 282 feet (86 meters). The drive was followed with the usual post-drive Navigation Camera (Navcam) and Pancam panoramas to support the next drive. As of Sol 3744 (Aug. 5, 2014), the solar array energy production was 686 watt-hours with an atmospheric opacity (Tau) of 0.872 and a solar array dust factor of 0.802. Total odometry is 25.09 miles (40.38 kilometers). __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://three.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] Meteorite falls, NEXRAD changes and recovery rates
Hi Anne, Thanks for the shout-out regarding meteorite recovery via all-sky camera triangulation and Doppler radar. I have some bad news as far as the radar angle that I thought I would share, which may help explain some of the recent downturn in meteorite recovery rates -- at least in the U.S. Sometime in the last year or two, many (possibly most?) NEXRAD radar sites changed their operating modes to support dual polarization. Some have argued that this would not result in a loss of sensitivity, but only an improvement in differentiating weather phenomena from other noise features (e.g. birds, bats, bugs, meteorites, ground return). But from a meteorite-to-be detection perspective, Marc Fries and I would much prefer that no filtering of the radar data take place: we WANT to see all that noise. Unfortunately, the level-2 data that is provided by NOAA has clearly undergone some degree of processing, and the combination of the change in operating mode coupled with that processing has resulted in a definite loss of sensitivity to the very phenomenology that interests us (but is of little interest to meteorologists, in spite of their name. ;-) Marc tells me that the sensitivity appears to have dropped by 3 dbZ, which may not sound like a lot, but it's a 50% power drop off. If you revisit some old falls, and cut their radar signatures in half, they become much more difficult to recognize. For instance, Marc went back and looked at Ash Creek (West, TX) and said that a 50% drop in the sensitivity would have removed 90% of the radar returns. Knowing this, it goes a long way toward explaining why none of the seemingly spectacular bolides of the last year have had in your face radar returns -- to include this most recent falls in southeast Virginia and on the northern Alabama/Georgia border. Both of these were almost certainly meteorite-producing events, and yet I worry that folks have become so dependent on radar data that when it isn't forthcoming it means it's not worth pursuing. Hopefully this message will make clear that the old school approaches based purely on optical triangulation are still very valid, and with or without corroborative radar are worth chasing. For our part, recognition of the radar operating mode change has alerted Marc and me to lower our thresholds and look for noise-floor-level returns that spatially correlate with fall locations determined by optical means. --Rob -Original Message- From: Meteorite-list [mailto:meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com] On Behalf Of Anne Black via Meteorite-list Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2014 6:50 PM To: almi...@localnet.com; meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] GA NC TN AL KY Meteor Approx 2320 EDT // 2220 CDT 02AUG2014 Thank you Al! You are the only one who responded. Yes, of course a lot of meteorites are lost to the oceans, lakes, and to remote areas. And it is interesting that the best year for Falls is 1933. Of course I certainly would not expect the average rate of Falls to change over the years, but with radar, all-sky cameras, computers, fast communications, all the work from Dirk Ross, Rob Matson and several others, and a lot more people looking up, I would expect the percentage of recoveries to go up. But is it? Or is all our modern fancy equipment all for naught? Anne M. Black www.IMPACTIKA.com impact...@aol.com -Original Message- From: almitt2--- via Meteorite-list meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com To: meteorite-list meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Tue, Aug 5, 2014 7:24 pm Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] GA NC TN AL KY Meteor Approx 2320 EDT // 2220CDT 02AUG2014 Hi Anne and all, There are many scientifically calculated fall rates. Most assume meteorites that have landed are 100 grams or larger as those are deemed more findable. A Canadian study estimated some 21,000 falls per year. We loose 3/4 in the oceans, leaving some 6,000 to land on dry land. Many of those land in remote areas away from the notice of people. Higher populations usually result in the notice of more falls. Light pollution probably reduces that number some. Of all the falls, only 0.1% or about 5 to 6 falls per year are actually collected. The 1933 year was an excellent year for recovery of falls. 17 meteorites of the potential fall total were recovered! According to this Canadian study we are really no better at recovery of falls than we were in the past. Even though meteorite falls are better understood than in the past. It is important to keep this in mind as there are many unlocated falls all over the world. Source for some of this information: Canadian fireball rates and meteorite falls – declining returns by Martin Beech Campion College, The University of Regina, Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada --AL Mitterling Mitterling Meteorites Quoting Anne Black via Meteorite-list meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com: I am curious. It is practically everyday that a
[meteorite-list] NASA Selects Proposals for Advanced Energy Storage Systems
August 7, 2014 NASA Selects Proposals for Advanced Energy Storage Systems NASA has selected four proposals for advanced energy storage technologies that may be used to power the agency's future space missions. Development of these new energy storage devices will help enable NASA's future robotic and human-exploration missions and aligns with conclusions presented in the National Research Council's NASA Space Technology Roadmaps and Priorities, which calls for improved energy generation and storage with reliable power systems that can survive the wide range of environments unique to NASA missions. NASA believes these awards will lead to such energy breakthroughs. NASA's advanced space technology development doesn't stop with hardware and instruments for spacecraft, said Michael Gazarik, associate administrator for Space Technology at NASA Headquarters in Washington. New energy storage technology will be critical to our future exploration of deep space -- whether missions to an asteroid, Mars or beyond. That's why we're investing in this critical mission technology area. Managed by the Game Changing Development Program within NASA's Space Technology Mission Directorate, the four selected technology proposals are: -- Silicon Anode Based Cells for High Specific Energy Systems, submitted by Amprius, Inc, in Sunnyvale, California -- High Energy Density and Long-Life Li-S Batteries for Aerospace Applications, submitted by the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena -- Advanced High Energy Rechargeable Lithium-Sulfur Batteries, submitted by Indiana University in Bloomington -- Garnet Electrolyte Based Safe, Lithium-Sulfur Energy Storage, submitted by the University of Maryland, College Park Phase I awards are approximately $250,000 and provide funding to conduct an eight-month component test and analysis phase. Phase II is an engineering development unit hardware phase that provides as much as $1 million per award for one year, while Phase III consists of the prototype hardware development, as much as $2 million per award for 18 months. Proposals for this solicitation were submitted by NASA centers, federally funded research and development centers, universities and industry. NASA's Langley Research Center in Hampton, Virginia, manages the Game Changing Development program for the Space Technology Mission Directorate. NASA is working closely with the Department of Energy's Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA-E) and other partners to propel the development of energy storage technology solutions for future human and robotic exploration missions. Committed to developing the critical technologies needed for deep space exploration, NASA's Space Technology Mission Directorate will make significant investments over the next 18 months to address several high-priority challenges in achieving this goal. http://www.nasa.gov/spacetech -end- David E. Steitz Headquarters, Washington 202-358-1730 david.ste...@nasa.gov Chris Rink Langley Research Center, Hampton, Va. 757-864-6786 chris.r...@nasa.gov __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://three.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Chelyabinsk Meteorite Sheds Light on Dinosaur Extinction Mystery
Mike G writes: Am I missing something? In short, Mike, yes. Serious work on the KT impacts which was never done or which is suppressed. But missing all of that is not your fault, as the blame may be securely placed on other parties. good hunting all, E.P. Grondine Man and Impact in the Americas __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://three.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite Sculpture by Katie Paterson
Hi Laura, Peter, Anne, David, List, Honorable Chairpeople, In generating discussion, the artist has succeeded. If that was one of the goals, then the artwork was a success in the eyes of some. We are still talking about it, which I am not sure says more about the art itself or the state of recent affairs (or lack of) in the meteorite world... (sales of all remelted non-widmanstatten iron artworks is hereby suspended until further notice.) I believe that we are all temporary caregivers for these cosmic immortal rocks (and irons). They have existed since the birth of our Sun and they will exist long after that same Sun is dead. We are a part of these meteorites complex exposure histories. To far-future researchers, we will be distant biological contaminants that briefly influenced the chemical and physical weathering of these meteorites. I feel it is our duty to curate our meteorites with a level of respect and regard that is due to any creation that is billions of years old and will exist for billions more. We should not make cutesy trinkets from them lightly. Considering that, the artist used a common meteorite and it's destruction is no loss to the body of scientific knowledge. This is not a case of someone grinding up Sutter's Mill stones to make balding-cure snake oil. So, we can disagree with the artwork or the treatment of the meteorite used, but we should not be completely dismissive of it because it is causing no great harm to science or meteoritics. I wouldn't do that to any meteorite. It seems pointless to me and artistic goals could be met using meteorites in a more respectful manner. I have sold meteorites to artists and craftsmen who intended to use them as a medium or part of the works, but I would not sell to someone to planned to completely destroy the unique nature of the meteorite. Attitudes vary, but art will always be art. I cannot say what is art, but I can say that I do not particularly care for melting down meteorites completely. They can never be restored and that does represent a loss, if not to science, then to the cosmos as a whole. (And a failure in our jobs as temporary guardians!) Best regards, MikeG PS - I have seen some very artful use of meteorite, with some examples by others on this List. So it can be done properly. -- - Web - http://www.galactic-stone.com Facebook - http://www.facebook.com/galacticstone Twitter - http://twitter.com/galacticstone Pinterest - http://pinterest.com/galacticstone - On 8/7/14, Laura--- via Meteorite-list meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com wrote: Ok, so now I have to give my two cents...sense! I too do artwork involving meteorites, love the hunt, and collecting. I might note that no meteorite was harmed in the making of my work! (I don't even like the idea of slicing one into pieces, but that is my own issue, and it is done every day, and I own slices of them too!) There are a few questions to ask, that if these found items are raised up to a level that, we as creatures with opposable thumbs and conscience thought, elevate them to the point of greater importance, then has meteorites become something of worship for modern day society? If so, then what right do any of us have to claim ownership? Do they all belong in museums? What good does that one on your desk, shelf or locked up in the climate controlled safe do to the greater good, or is that self-indulgence at its finest, or just for profit? I suppose that if ownership is the case, then we are by right able to do whatever we desire, as it then belongs to the owner to keep or shape into any existence we see fit. If for profit, then what does it matter what the new owner does? Some questions that cross my mind are, What is the purpose in this artwork and the end result?. I haven't read the full artist statement on this direct subject, but have visited her website, and her work is very interesting, and consummate. So...Since this has developed into a long discussion with many views, that expand across the continents, then the artist has accomplished a great deal of awareness on the topic, and on the meteorite community and public. That is very difficult artistic task, so this is a success in many ways! Then the next question is does this artwork make a change, or create awareness. My answer to this is yes! So, even though I cannot bring myself to intentionally manipulate a meteorite to the point it is in a completely new form, I have to think her conceptual ideas are a success, and my meager attempts at education and awareness thru artistic means needs to be revisited. And that too has created a self-awareness in myself, and will create change. So, by right, I feel her work has done what art is truly about, and that is to create change in some form, be it reaction, action or conscience, be it to
Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite falls, NEXRAD changes and recovery rates
Thank you Rob, Thanks for the clear and thorough explanation. Yes, radar was not invented to please meteorite-hunters. It would have been nice, but . back to the old ways! Anne M. Black www.IMPACTIKA.com impact...@aol.com -Original Message- From: Matson, Rob D. robert.d.mat...@leidos.com To: Anne Black impact...@aol.com; almitt2 almi...@localnet.com; meteorite-list meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Thu, Aug 7, 2014 4:54 pm Subject: Meteorite falls, NEXRAD changes and recovery rates Hi Anne, Thanks for the shout-out regarding meteorite recovery via all-sky camera triangulation and Doppler radar. I have some bad news as far as the radar angle that I thought I would share, which may help explain some of the recent downturn in meteorite recovery rates -- at least in the U.S. Sometime in the last year or two, many (possibly most?) NEXRAD radar sites changed their operating modes to support dual polarization. Some have argued that this would not result in a loss of sensitivity, but only an improvement in differentiating weather phenomena from other noise features (e.g. birds, bats, bugs, meteorites, ground return). But from a meteorite-to-be detection perspective, Marc Fries and I would much prefer that no filtering of the radar data take place: we WANT to see all that noise. Unfortunately, the level-2 data that is provided by NOAA has clearly undergone some degree of processing, and the combination of the change in operating mode coupled with that processing has resulted in a definite loss of sensitivity to the very phenomenology that interests us (but is of little interest to meteorologists, in spite of their name. ;-) Marc tells me that the sensitivity appears to have dropped by 3 dbZ, which may not sound like a lot, but it's a 50% power drop off. If you revisit some old falls, and cut their radar signatures in half, they become much more difficult to recognize. For instance, Marc went back and looked at Ash Creek (West, TX) and said that a 50% drop in the sensitivity would have removed 90% of the radar returns. Knowing this, it goes a long way toward explaining why none of the seemingly spectacular bolides of the last year have had in your face radar returns -- to include this most recent falls in southeast Virginia and on the northern Alabama/Georgia border. Both of these were almost certainly meteorite-producing events, and yet I worry that folks have become so dependent on radar data that when it isn't forthcoming it means it's not worth pursuing. Hopefully this message will make clear that the old school approaches based purely on optical triangulation are still very valid, and with or without corroborative radar are worth chasing. For our part, recognition of the radar operating mode change has alerted Marc and me to lower our thresholds and look for noise-floor-level returns that spatially correlate with fall locations determined by optical means. --Rob -Original Message- From: Meteorite-list [mailto:meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com] On Behalf Of Anne Black via Meteorite-list Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2014 6:50 PM To: almi...@localnet.com; meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] GA NC TN AL KY Meteor Approx 2320 EDT // 2220 CDT 02AUG2014 Thank you Al! You are the only one who responded. Yes, of course a lot of meteorites are lost to the oceans, lakes, and to remote areas. And it is interesting that the best year for Falls is 1933. Of course I certainly would not expect the average rate of Falls to change over the years, but with radar, all-sky cameras, computers, fast communications, all the work from Dirk Ross, Rob Matson and several others, and a lot more people looking up, I would expect the percentage of recoveries to go up. But is it? Or is all our modern fancy equipment all for naught? Anne M. Black www.IMPACTIKA.com impact...@aol.com -Original Message- From: almitt2--- via Meteorite-list meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com To: meteorite-list meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Tue, Aug 5, 2014 7:24 pm Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] GA NC TN AL KY Meteor Approx 2320 EDT // 2220CDT 02AUG2014 Hi Anne and all, There are many scientifically calculated fall rates. Most assume meteorites that have landed are 100 grams or larger as those are deemed more findable. A Canadian study estimated some 21,000 falls per year. We loose 3/4 in the oceans, leaving some 6,000 to land on dry land. Many of those land in remote areas away from the notice of people. Higher populations usually result in the notice of more falls. Light pollution probably reduces that number some. Of all the falls, only 0.1% or about 5 to 6 falls per year are actually collected. The 1933 year was an excellent year for recovery of falls. 17 meteorites of the potential fall total were recovered! According to this Canadian study we are really no better at recovery of falls than
Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite Sculpture by Katie Paterson
Thank you. Well said. Meteorites are not toys for humans to play with. Anne M. Black www.IMPACTIKA.com impact...@aol.com -Original Message- From: Galactic Stone Ironworks via Meteorite-list meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com To: Laura la...@copperwired.com Cc: info i...@moonmarsrocks.com; meteorite-list meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Thu, Aug 7, 2014 7:43 pm Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite Sculpture by Katie Paterson Hi Laura, Peter, Anne, David, List, Honorable Chairpeople, In generating discussion, the artist has succeeded. If that was one of the goals, then the artwork was a success in the eyes of some. We are still talking about it, which I am not sure says more about the art itself or the state of recent affairs (or lack of) in the meteorite world... (sales of all remelted non-widmanstatten iron artworks is hereby suspended until further notice.) I believe that we are all temporary caregivers for these cosmic immortal rocks (and irons). They have existed since the birth of our Sun and they will exist long after that same Sun is dead. We are a part of these meteorites complex exposure histories. To far-future researchers, we will be distant biological contaminants that briefly influenced the chemical and physical weathering of these meteorites. I feel it is our duty to curate our meteorites with a level of respect and regard that is due to any creation that is billions of years old and will exist for billions more. We should not make cutesy trinkets from them lightly. Considering that, the artist used a common meteorite and it's destruction is no loss to the body of scientific knowledge. This is not a case of someone grinding up Sutter's Mill stones to make balding-cure snake oil. So, we can disagree with the artwork or the treatment of the meteorite used, but we should not be completely dismissive of it because it is causing no great harm to science or meteoritics. I wouldn't do that to any meteorite. It seems pointless to me and artistic goals could be met using meteorites in a more respectful manner. I have sold meteorites to artists and craftsmen who intended to use them as a medium or part of the works, but I would not sell to someone to planned to completely destroy the unique nature of the meteorite. Attitudes vary, but art will always be art. I cannot say what is art, but I can say that I do not particularly care for melting down meteorites completely. They can never be restored and that does represent a loss, if not to science, then to the cosmos as a whole. (And a failure in our jobs as temporary guardians!) Best regards, MikeG PS - I have seen some very artful use of meteorite, with some examples by others on this List. So it can be done properly. -- - Web - http://www.galactic-stone.com Facebook - http://www.facebook.com/galacticstone Twitter - http://twitter.com/galacticstone Pinterest - http://pinterest.com/galacticstone - On 8/7/14, Laura--- via Meteorite-list meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com wrote: Ok, so now I have to give my two cents...sense! I too do artwork involving meteorites, love the hunt, and collecting. I might note that no meteorite was harmed in the making of my work! (I don't even like the idea of slicing one into pieces, but that is my own issue, and it is done every day, and I own slices of them too!) There are a few questions to ask, that if these found items are raised up to a level that, we as creatures with opposable thumbs and conscience thought, elevate them to the point of greater importance, then has meteorites become something of worship for modern day society? If so, then what right do any of us have to claim ownership? Do they all belong in museums? What good does that one on your desk, shelf or locked up in the climate controlled safe do to the greater good, or is that self-indulgence at its finest, or just for profit? I suppose that if ownership is the case, then we are by right able to do whatever we desire, as it then belongs to the owner to keep or shape into any existence we see fit. If for profit, then what does it matter what the new owner does? Some questions that cross my mind are, What is the purpose in this artwork and the end result?. I haven't read the full artist statement on this direct subject, but have visited her website, and her work is very interesting, and consummate. So...Since this has developed into a long discussion with many views, that expand across the continents, then the artist has accomplished a great deal of awareness on the topic, and on the meteorite community and public. That is very difficult artistic task, so this is a success in many ways! Then the next question is does this artwork make a change, or create awareness. My answer to this is yes! So, even though I cannot bring
[meteorite-list] Melted meteorite art
I rarely post anything anymore but I do read most of what comes from this list. This melting of a meteorite to remake it was pointless to me when I first heard about it months ago. Unlike some of those who have posted I am an artist. And no matter how hard I try I cannot understand this. I use meteorite material in art. I have used small pieces of stone that were common unclassified meteorite in jewelry as have others. I have no problem with mounting pallasite slices as jewelry. The melting and reforging of meteorite scrap metal into knives is wonderful art and creating useful items that will be treasured. Are there some gray areas like infusing wine with meteorite? I think so. But there are also uses that I think are perfectly appropriate. When I formulate clay for pottery using meteorite dust saved from cutting stones I have not one thought that it is inappropriate. When I mix dust from meteorites into glazes or as pigment in paints I don't think about it. But I have thought about the destruction by melting simply to recast it back many times over the last months. And my thoughts have never once been that the resulting item was art but only a waste of a wanderer from beyond the Earth that is gone forever. Controversy does not always go along with art but some art can make us think. Sometime the art is never there only the controversy. Is art in the eye of the beholder? I would say yes. Yet sometimes a bad idea is just a bad idea. Talk to you all again in a year or so Jim Sent from my iPhone __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://three.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
