Re: [meteorite-list] What are the top 10 most scientificallyimportant meteorites?
Hi, Jason, List You're certainly right -- we are all interpreting the request quite differently. And yes, I am taking the historical angle. But the point about history, particularly the history of an idea, is that certain objects or events do more than add to what we know; they make changes in how we think. We are able to think of meteorites AS meteorites because of L'Aigle. If some stone had not been recognized as a genuine proven rock that fell from the heavens, there would be no such thing as a meteorite. By that I mean, its physical reality aside, a meteorite is only a meteorite because we recognize it to be one; the categories of human knowledge are human constructs. No L'Aigle, no meteorites. Of course, I hope humanity is not so dense that L'Aigle was its only chance to figure it out. Maybe Pultusk would have been the first meteorite. The little enigimas you mention -- Graves Nunataks (GRA) 06128 and 06129, like NWA 011, Ibitira, Semarkona, Kaidun -- have unique stories, yes, some valuable, some still puzzles, and their full stories, when known, might be immensely important or just another footnote. They are the current mysteries whose importance is largely to show us we don't understand everything yet. Ten (or twenty) years from now, your list would be populated with new mysteries and new revelations (hopefully). The original criterion was most significant in increasing our understanding of the evolution of our solar system. How far would our understanding of that go if we didn't know the Solar System was full of rocks? And weren't forced to the understanding that they were the leftovers? And therefore that the planets must have been cobbled together from them? And so forth. What would be the meteorites-yet-to-be-discovered that would be on that list? The first rock with unequivocal proof of life anywhere else than this little planet, at whatever time. That would go on my future list. The first rock found that did NOT originate in this solar system. It would make the list. Of course, these rocks may not exist... Personally, I think all the lists suggested to the List are good lists, just of thirteen (or 30 or 300) ways of looking at a blackbird (or a black rock). Sterling K. Webb -- - Original Message - From: Jason Utas meteorite...@gmail.com To: Meteorite-list meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2009 9:36 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] What are the top 10 most scientificallyimportant meteorites? Hello Graham, Sterling, John, Jeff, Walter, Rob, All, With regards to Sterling's point - true enough, but that's taking the historical angle again - we didn't believe that impact craters existed, we find a crater surrounded by meteorites, and eventually enough research added up to prove that it was indeed an impact crater. But this could have been done at any other crater that wasn't badly eroded...it's like L'Aigle in the sense that you're talking about a paradigm shift that could have been caused by any meteorite, any crater. In fact, the meteorite itself in this case becomes irrelevant - you're talking about a crater being important, not the irons. And the irons are fairly typical IAB's, chemically very similar to a number of other irons. I think the trouble is that we need clarification when making such a list because, as a number of you are saying, we're all just making lists based on our interpretation of Graham's request. I saw his question as a demand for a list of meteorites which were of particular scientific note, and made just such a list - but even I became sidetracked in my mentioning of the first lunar and martian meteorites ever recognized, for they fall into the historically, rather than scientifically important category. Their discovery was of note, but the meteorites themselves...while not typical, they're nothing too out of the ordinary. So what determines whether or not a meteorite is of scientific interest? I believe that mentioning things like L'Aigle or Canyon Diablo in this case is wrong because the meteorites, while they did cause major shifts in how we see the solar system and how it works, are relatively ordinary. But beyond that...I believe Greg Hupe had a good point when he mentioned that there are a great number of meteorites that are of great scientific interest that are more or less ignored because they come from NWA. I think it's going to take looking beyond what we think of as rare, because what we know as collectors isn't really what's scientifically important. In many cases, we never get a chance to buy those rocks, and there's good reason for it. I see it in a number of the lists mentioned; at least one person mentioned Calcalong Creek - without even making note of ALHA81005, the first recognized lunar meteorite. Why? Calcalong Creek is a rare and beautiful meteorite, granted, but is it particularly
Re: [meteorite-list] What are the top 10 most scientificallyimportant meteorites?
To continue on Sterling's theme about Mars (a little off topic from meteorites): Thanks to Gene Shoemaker, a number of lunar missions, and Apollo, it was clear that the craters on the Moon were impact features and not volcanic. However, for Mars, it was just another Moon-like body! Mariner 4, as Sterling states, showed that Mars sort of looked like the Moon: craters. Within a month after Apollo 11, Mariner 6 and 7 had flown by Mars and taken a bunch more detailed images of Mars. However, they flew by the equator and south pole of Mars. All they saw were (other than the pole), more craters! It was not until 1971 with the Mariner 9 orbiter that we knew that Mars was not all that Moon-like (from the point of view of craters) when it discovered Valis Marineris and Olympus Mons. Oh, Sterling, to date me, I WAS there for Mariner 6 and 7. My summer job before grad school was, among other things, developing (yes we used film) the images that came back from Mariner 6 and 7. Larry On Sat, February 14, 2009 8:03 pm, Sterling K. Webb wrote: Dear Jason, List, Canyon Diablo... helped us to understand impact dynamics but as to how that plays into our understanding of the evolution of the solar system...it doesn't, really. Prior to the assertion that Meteor Crater was an impact feature, the concept of impact as a possible event was nil, non-existent, and when proposed was widely denied, pooh-pooh'ed -- an affront to the orderly and rational natural world. Barringer conceived of the crater as what we would call a particularly large impact pit, not an explosive crater, but the evidence drew him that way. Nininger was really the first to understand the possibility of impact as a geological process (without understanding the scale on which it was possible) and that understanding led straight to the late Gene Shoemaker, who single-handedly pushed a planet full of resistant scientists into the realization by patiently rubbing their noses in it for decades. Shoemaker's 1960 paper ending the 70-year dispute about the origin of Meteor Crater caused a sensation in geology, as it was the first definitive proof of an extraterrestrial impact on the Earth's surface. This was the first crater proved to be of impact origin. Proving that impact was a fundamental geological process would take decades longer. Paradigms don't always shift quickly. In the 1950's, the only cratered body known to science was the Moon, so presumably craters were an odd or unique feature in the Solar System, an individual characteristic of the Moon, not of planetary bodies generally. It was virtually universally understood that the 1000's of craters that covered the Moon were volcanic features. Our exploration of the Moon was substantially biased toward finding (mostly non-existent) evidence of volcanic activity. Even the first photos of craters on Mars in 1965 by Mariner 4 did not budge that mindset much. This was one of those you-had-to-be-there moments -- the shock and disbelief caused by craters on Mars (and the quivers of denial that followed) was profound, like being hit between the eyes with a two-by-four. Well, they were probably volcanic craters anyway... The 1970's competed the change of paradigm and the fact of impact as a geological process (the title of the book that nailed it down firmly). That almost every body in the Solar System with a solid surface is cratered is now a Ho Hum fact. The reason that you, Jason, can think it's not important is because you are on the modern side of the conceptual divide. Until the understanding of impact, solar system formation models were divided between accretion and coalescence. Very few people still believe planets formed like a dew drop any more. The change in formation theory walks hand-in-hand with impact theory. If Canyon Diablo was the catalyst for the recognition of impact processes in the Solar System -- and I think it was -- then it might well be the most significant in increasing our understanding of the evolution of our solar system. Sterling K. Webb -- --- - Original Message - From: Jason Utas meteorite...@gmail.com To: Meteorite-list meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2009 5:08 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] What are the top 10 most scientificallyimportant meteorites? Hola All, I would have to respectfully disagree. The original post my Graham asked for a list of ten of the most important meteorites with regard to science, and he then went on to ask: Which ones have been the most significant in increasing our understanding of the evolution of our solar system, and what they have taught us? I believe that the implication of his email was not to ask for a list of meteorites that helped to further our acceptance of meteoritics as a field, but rather to obtain a list of the ten most scientifically
Re: [meteorite-list] What are the top 10 most scientificallyimportant meteorites?
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] What are the top 10 most scientificallyimportant meteorites? Hello Graham, Sterling, John, Jeff, Walter, Rob, All, With regards to Sterling's point - true enough, but that's taking the historical angle again - we didn't believe that impact craters existed, we find a crater surrounded by meteorites, and eventually enough research added up to prove that it was indeed an impact crater. But this could have been done at any other crater that wasn't badly eroded...it's like L'Aigle in the sense that you're talking about a paradigm shift that could have been caused by any meteorite, any crater. In fact, the meteorite itself in this case becomes irrelevant - you're talking about a crater being important, not the irons. And the irons are fairly typical IAB's, chemically very similar to a number of other irons. I think the trouble is that we need clarification when making such a list because, as a number of you are saying, we're all just making lists based on our interpretation of Graham's request. I saw his question as a demand for a list of meteorites which were of particular scientific note, and made just such a list - but even I became sidetracked in my mentioning of the first lunar and martian meteorites ever recognized, for they fall into the historically, rather than scientifically important category. Their discovery was of note, but the meteorites themselves...while not typical, they're nothing too out of the ordinary. So what determines whether or not a meteorite is of scientific interest? I believe that mentioning things like L'Aigle or Canyon Diablo in this case is wrong because the meteorites, while they did cause major shifts in how we see the solar system and how it works, are relatively ordinary. But beyond that...I believe Greg Hupe had a good point when he mentioned that there are a great number of meteorites that are of great scientific interest that are more or less ignored because they come from NWA. I think it's going to take looking beyond what we think of as rare, because what we know as collectors isn't really what's scientifically important. In many cases, we never get a chance to buy those rocks, and there's good reason for it. I see it in a number of the lists mentioned; at least one person mentioned Calcalong Creek - without even making note of ALHA81005, the first recognized lunar meteorite. Why? Calcalong Creek is a rare and beautiful meteorite, granted, but is it particularly scientifically important? No. But - it was the first lunar meteorite available to the public. Rocks like Graves Nunataks (GRA) 06128 and 06129, like NWA 011, Ibitira, Semarkona, Kaidun - they do much more individually to further our knowledge of the solar system. I couldn't make a list of ten, because saying which unique meteorite or trait of a particular meteorite holds greater importance isn't something I see as rewarding...thinking about it just makes me realize how fortunate we are to be able to actually collect and touch these pieces of the very distant past. Regards, Jason On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 7:03 PM, Sterling K. Webb sterling_k_w...@sbcglobal.net wrote: Dear Jason, List, Canyon Diablo... helped us to understand impact dynamics but as to how that plays into our understanding of the evolution of the solar system...it doesn't, really. Prior to the assertion that Meteor Crater was an impact feature, the concept of impact as a possible event was nil, non-existent, and when proposed was widely denied, pooh-pooh'ed -- an affront to the orderly and rational natural world. Barringer conceived of the crater as what we would call a particularly large impact pit, not an explosive crater, but the evidence drew him that way. Nininger was really the first to understand the possibility of impact as a geological process (without understanding the scale on which it was possible) and that understanding led straight to the late Gene Shoemaker, who single-handedly pushed a planet full of resistant scientists into the realization by patiently rubbing their noses in it for decades. Shoemaker's 1960 paper ending the 70-year dispute about the origin of Meteor Crater caused a sensation in geology, as it was the first definitive proof of an extraterrestrial impact on the Earth's surface. This was the first crater proved to be of impact origin. Proving that impact was a fundamental geological process would take decades longer. Paradigms don't always shift quickly. In the 1950's, the only cratered body known to science was the Moon, so presumably craters were an odd or unique feature in the Solar System, an individual characteristic of the Moon, not of planetary bodies generally. It was virtually universally understood that the 1000's of craters that covered the Moon were volcanic features. Our exploration of the Moon was substantially biased toward finding (mostly non-existent) evidence of volcanic activity. Even the first photos of craters on Mars in 1965
Re: [meteorite-list] What are the top 10 most scientificallyimportant meteorites?
the result of the Casablanca-Meeting, where it was stated that the meteorites from Morocco were perfectly legal. Furthermore the prices of NWA-material and all other meteorites are publically accessible to everyone. Because the meteorite market is exactly the opposite of the black market those people are propagating in media, it is very transparent. With the system of the central recording and publishing of all meteorites by the Meteoritical Society, they have always a survey at hand, which material does exist at all and in which quantities. The prices of the last 200 years and the expenses of the institutes and museums are visible the archives and the publications, the expenses and find rates of official expeditions and the Antarctic campaigns, cause it is public money, should be found published too (although with Antarctica I have difficulties to find it in internet. Only here a figure, there a number. 30 millions for Euromet here, 20 Millions for NIPR there, 70 millions a year for fuel and stuff for McMurdo...) So it's for everyone evident, that NWA isn't only a blessing for science but that they are by far the most cost-effective way to do research about out solar system. You know, Argentina, now Poland... these laws are made by politicians, who got alerted by the propaganda of people like SchmittSmith. They read about black market, drug dealers, weapon spivs, they are stuffed with the prices of the lunaites of the 90ies and they get served a grotesque distortion of the quantities of material. Gosh, do I expect to much, if I ask, that a Chennaoui a Smith takes themselves only once that hour time to check the tkws in the Bulletin database? I mean, meteorites are their profession and they are even so lucky to be paid for their passion. The highest of high of non-OCs, the eucrites, were you have to pick up first hundreds of chondrites, 40kg from Antarctica in 30+ years, 100kgs from NWA and other deserts in 20 years.. And if they expose theirselves in that way, couldn't we expect, that they spend altogether 2 days for getting a survey or an impression of meteorite pricing? Each newbie among the laymen coming to meteorites is able to check these stats and facts. And naturally politicians, cause they have no insight, they say k sounds dangerous, let's make a law. But how would they react, if you tell them the find rates of Antarctica and universitary expeditions and their costs? If you'd tell them the costs of space flight and earth-bound research in the neighboured subjects? And if you'd tell them in the end. that the complete annual output of the deserts, exceeding all other ways of getting this desired and highly relevant material by weight, by numbers, by weight, by most interesting and important finds, that this output is completely available at costs, which do not exceed the costs for 3 or 4 common research projects on of a department 3 or 4 mid-sized universities? (For that, what is spend for 1 week Antarctic search, they could have the complete masses of 5 or 6 different lunars - and lunars are by far already the most expensive stuff -) That is the true beef. So it is simply completely unreasonable not to research or not to acquire desert finds additionally to the material found by official campaigns (and perhaps also somewhat unjustifiable towards the public, which has to pay the latter). And that's why I have not the slightest doubts, that NWA will play their role in future. Only a little patience is necessary. Back from the digression. Only for my taste - I would replace Ensisheim by Elbogen. Elbogen felt earlier, the legends are recorded. Ensisheim hadn't that impact, even young Wolfgang v.Goethe still made jokes about the funny aborigines, who believed that the chunk in the church had fallen from sky. And Widmannstaetter used Elbogen to print his famous Thomson-structures. Happy Sunday! Martin -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com [mailto:meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com] Im Auftrag von Jason Utas Gesendet: Sonntag, 15. Februar 2009 04:37 An: Meteorite-list Betreff: Re: [meteorite-list] What are the top 10 most scientificallyimportant meteorites? Hello Graham, Sterling, John, Jeff, Walter, Rob, All, With regards to Sterling's point - true enough, but that's taking the historical angle again - we didn't believe that impact craters existed, we find a crater surrounded by meteorites, and eventually enough research added up to prove that it was indeed an impact crater. But this could have been done at any other crater that wasn't badly eroded...it's like L'Aigle in the sense that you're talking about a paradigm shift that could have been caused by any meteorite, any crater. In fact, the meteorite itself in this case becomes irrelevant - you're talking about a crater being important, not the irons. And the irons are fairly typical IAB's, chemically very similar to a number of other irons. I think the trouble
Re: [meteorite-list] What are the top 10 most scientificallyimportant meteorites?
Jeff and all: You reminded me of the importance of certain meteorites to the study of asteroids. It was a near infrared spectrum of Orgueil and then Murchison that led to the discovery of water of hydration on C-class asteroids and made a very important connection between the primitive asteroids and carbonaceous meteorites. This work is still going on today thanks to those early spectra, including the Dawn mission to Vesta and Ceres. Larry On Sun, February 15, 2009 5:53 am, Jeff Grossman wrote: [retransmit of message that didn't seem to go through] I can speak to the subject of chondrites and what they tell us about the very early solar system. I read the question in the present tense: what ARE the most important meteorites [today]. Among ordinary chondrites, there is one meteorite that is clearly the most important to current research: Semarkona. It is the least metamorphosed ordinary chondrite and best preserves the pre-accretionary record. NASA ADS lists 50 references that mention it in the abstract since the year 2000. If you want to study primitive OCs, you study this one if you can get it. Nothing else is close. Among carbonaceous chondrites, there are several: Acfer 094 has seen almost no thermal metamorphism and almost no aqueous alteration, an extreme rarity among carbonaceous chondrites. It too is a hotly studied meteorite. 50 references since 2000. Murchison is still probably the king of CM chondrites. Although heavily altered by water, none of the CMs have seen much heating, and they still retain a good record of nebular and presolar processes. By virtue of its large recovered mass, and the high content of organic compounds in this group, it is still widely studied 40 years after the fall. 100 refs since 2000. Although the CV chondrite Allende is now known to be fairly altered and somewhat metamorphosed, no meteorite is studied as much, even today, with 350 refs since 2000. It is especially important for what it tells us about CAI formation. Another CV, Vigarano, also sees a lot of research because it is less messed up than Allende (50 refs since 2000) and has a large mass in collections. The fairly massive CI chondrite Orgueil is still the go-to meteorite in this chemically primitive, unmetamorphosed, but greatly altered group, especially for studies of organic compounds: 150 refs since 2000. Other C chondrites like Renazzo, Isheyevo, and especially Tagish Lake (150 refs) are also widely studied. I think Kaidun is also a very important meteorite due to the incredible diversity of clasts it contains, but it is hard for researchers to obtain. Among enstatite chondrites, it's harder to say which are the most important. I guess I'd name Yamato 691 and Qingzhen as the most important primitive ones. They are not widely studied these days. So there are 12 of what I think are the most important chondrites. I probably forgot some too! Jeff __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] What are the top 10 most scientificallyimportant meteorites?
In my naivete, I think this is largely quantifiable--with a few caveats. If the premise is that a meteorite referenced in five different abstracts is more scientifically important than a meteorite referenced in one (and I'm not referring to waypoints), wouldn't it follow that meteorites appearing in the most abstracts are more important? You will find a high correlation between the highest quantity of studies on those meteorites originally proffered by Jason. At the same time, there is the matter of availability of material. For example, 12-15 years ago I recall Allende being the most researched meteorite by far, which is in no small part due to its ready availability. Around the same time I recall several researchers bemoaning their inability to get their hands on Krymka. And then, more subjectively, there is the matter of the one earth- shaking study, say, the determination of life on Marswhich is related to the matter of firsts which shape future thinking. It's a fun exercise Happy Valentine's! d, On Feb 13, 2009, at 10:40 PM, Pete Shugar wrote: I would respectfully add Carancas, for it's rewriting of crater formation theory. Pete IMCA 1733 - Original Message - From: Pat Brown radio_ra...@yahoo.com To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com; ensorama...@ntlworld.com Sent: Friday, February 13, 2009 9:17 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] What are the top 10 most scientificallyimportant meteorites? OK Allende Murchison ALH84001 Tagish Lake Canyon Diablo (for it's Crater) Nakhla Calcalong Creek Orgueil Lost City (camera network data, orbit) Peekskill (videos, orbit data) --- On Fri, 2/13/09, ensorama...@ntlworld.com ensorama...@ntlworld.com wrote: From: ensorama...@ntlworld.com ensorama...@ntlworld.com Subject: [meteorite-list] What are the top 10 most scientifically important meteorites? To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Date: Friday, February 13, 2009, 3:55 PM Hi all, Just thought it might be interesting to discover list members opinions on what they would choose as the most important meteorites with regard to science? Which ones have been the most significant in increasing our understanding of the evolution of our solar system, and what they have taught us? Graham Ensor, UK. __ 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] What are the top 10 most scientificallyimportant meteorites?
I would have to agree with where you're coming from Jason. I think you would need to make a number of Top 10 lists for different reasons. Along with the top 10 most scientifically important meteorites you might also have the top 10 meteorites which have advanced meteoritical science. You could actually argue they are the same thing or you could look at one as a purely data relating one with the other as a more generalised one encompassing everything like Martin's very good argument for including L'Aigle. For me the most scientifically important meteorites would include things like Murchison, Allende, Tagish Lake, Krymka, Zagami and Chassigny? (how do you choose between the Planetaries?), D'Orbigny and the other Angrites, Karoonda, Ibitira and other ungrouped achondrites like NWA 011 and pairings. And then other personal biases like NWA 2892 with it's plastic chondrules throwing chondrule formation/accretion theories into disarray. Basically anything that further enhances our understanding of the processes behind the formation of our solar system. The other list the top 10 meteorites which have advanced meteoritical science might include the meteorites like L'Aigle, Sikhote, Canyon Diablo, Carancas, any meteorites with their orbits calculated, Ensisheim, the first meteorites to peak Harvey Nininger's interest, etc, etc. It would be a long list. That's just my way of looking at it and I'm sure everyone has their own opinion. Very interesting thread though... gets you thinking! Cheers, Jeff - Original Message - From: Jason Utas meteorite...@gmail.com To: Meteorite-list meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2009 10:08 AM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] What are the top 10 most scientificallyimportant meteorites? Hola All, I would have to respectfully disagree. The original post my Graham asked for a list of ten of the most important meteorites with regard to science, and he then went on to ask: Which ones have been the most significant in increasing our understanding of the evolution of our solar system, and what they have taught us? I believe that the implication of his email was not to ask for a list of meteorites that helped to further our acceptance of meteoritics as a field, but rather to obtain a list of the ten most scientifically interesting meteorites. And, to be perfectly frank, if L'Aigle had been any other type (iron, stony-iron, etc), the outcome of the situation would have been the same. As a meteorite, while it did help to open our eyes as to what was actually out there, it did little to tell us of the history of the formation of the solar system. And Michael's list is more of a list of the most beautiful/interesting meteorites from the point of view of a collector...it's just a different sort of list. Did Esquel or Sylacouga contribute to our knowledge about the early solar system? Not particularly, but they are two of the more desireable meteorites around, for non-scientific reasons. Canyon Diablo is interesting in its own right as a crater-forming meteorite, as it helped us to understand impact dynamics - but as to how that plays into our understanding of the evolution of the solar system...it doesn't, really. Regards, Jason On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 1:21 PM, Michael Blood mlbl...@cox.net wrote: Hi Jason and all, First of all, I think it should be mentioned that any such List is inevitably biased. Next, that said list cannot possibly nail a specific 10 meteorites. Assuming these two prospects are accepted, here are 10 Very respectable meteorites that would certainly merit full Consideration in comprising such a list ( and at least one why Per each: 1) Canyon Diablo: prototypical and stable iron from what was recognized as the only impact crater for a very long time. It Can be added that it was also the original site of the Nininger Museum 2) Allende: HUGE strewn field and, at the time, more than Doubled the total weight of known CR material available. It was also a witnessed fall with multiple hammer stones Striking homes and patios 3) Esquel: The queen of the Pallasites with fantastic color, Translucency, freedom from rust and in quantities large enough To allow any collector to have one of the few stable Pallasites. 4) Murchison: Providing most of the amino acids that comprise the building blocks of life, perhaps the most studied of any meteorite Ever and a major contributor to the angiosperm hypothesis. Again, a witnessed fall and a hammer. 5) Portalas Valley: Perhaps a surprise in many lists, this specimen has A unique physiology. Also a hammer. 6) Weston: The first scientifically recognized meteorite in the new world. Also a hammer. 7. L'Aigle: see below. (Also, there will be a forthcoming article on the Status of L'Aigle as a hammer). 8) Ensischeim: The meteorite from hell. (also a hammer if you care to consider a church courtyard a man made artifact). This is one of the richest
Re: [meteorite-list] What are the top 10 most scientificallyimportant meteorites?
Many people have put a lot of thought into this question. I can't promise to provide 10 but I do have a few suggestions Ensischeim must top the list as being the first undisputed from outer space. Canyon Diablo for it's influence in the acceptance that cataclysmic impacts can occur on earth Murchison and Allende arrived, by serendipity, just as the facilities to study them came on line and helped advance the study of meteorites and how it's done tremendously, I believe. ALH81005, being the first confirmed lunar meteorite demonstrated that rocks can make their way to earth from another major body. EETA79001 and ALH77005 the study of which provided the evidence leading to the belief that SNC meteorites came from Mars (Bogard and Johnson 1983). That's only 8 but as far as science goes, I think they're important. As for our understanding of how the solar system formed...well, I'm pretty sure they add something. Other meteorites will be considered to contribute more but at this time, the 30,000+ samples collected must be considered as a whole. The distribution of their types tells us a lot but it must also be remembered that our meteorite record is heavily skewed to recent events and current orbital dynamics. We must consider that the balance of meteorite types may have been different in the past and may also be different in the future. We simply do not know enough to be able to tell exactly how the solar system formed from the samples we have now but we do have enough to hazard an educated guess. Rob McC Then of course, there's ALH84001. Whatever your opinion of this meteorite, its contribution to the drive behind solving the are we alone? question cannot be denied. --- On Sat, 2/14/09, Jeff Kuyken i...@meteorites.com.au wrote: From: Jeff Kuyken i...@meteorites.com.au Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] What are the top 10 most scientificallyimportant meteorites? To: Jason Utas meteorite...@gmail.com, Meteorite-list meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Date: Saturday, February 14, 2009, 11:57 PM I would have to agree with where you're coming from Jason. I think you would need to make a number of Top 10 lists for different reasons. Along with the top 10 most scientifically important meteorites you might also have the top 10 meteorites which have advanced meteoritical science. You could actually argue they are the same thing or you could look at one as a purely data relating one with the other as a more generalised one encompassing everything like Martin's very good argument for including L'Aigle. For me the most scientifically important meteorites would include things like Murchison, Allende, Tagish Lake, Krymka, Zagami and Chassigny? (how do you choose between the Planetaries?), D'Orbigny and the other Angrites, Karoonda, Ibitira and other ungrouped achondrites like NWA 011 and pairings. And then other personal biases like NWA 2892 with it's plastic chondrules throwing chondrule formation/accretion theories into disarray. Basically anything that further enhances our understanding of the processes behind the formation of our solar system. The other list the top 10 meteorites which have advanced meteoritical science might include the meteorites like L'Aigle, Sikhote, Canyon Diablo, Carancas, any meteorites with their orbits calculated, Ensisheim, the first meteorites to peak Harvey Nininger's interest, etc, etc. It would be a long list. That's just my way of looking at it and I'm sure everyone has their own opinion. Very interesting thread though... gets you thinking! Cheers, Jeff - Original Message - From: Jason Utas meteorite...@gmail.com To: Meteorite-list meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2009 10:08 AM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] What are the top 10 most scientificallyimportant meteorites? Hola All, I would have to respectfully disagree. The original post my Graham asked for a list of ten of the most important meteorites with regard to science, and he then went on to ask: Which ones have been the most significant in increasing our understanding of the evolution of our solar system, and what they have taught us? I believe that the implication of his email was not to ask for a list of meteorites that helped to further our acceptance of meteoritics as a field, but rather to obtain a list of the ten most scientifically interesting meteorites. And, to be perfectly frank, if L'Aigle had been any other type (iron, stony-iron, etc), the outcome of the situation would have been the same. As a meteorite, while it did help to open our eyes as to what was actually out there, it did little to tell us of the history of the formation of the solar system. And Michael's list is more of a list of the most beautiful/interesting meteorites from the point of view of a collector...it's just a different sort of list. Did Esquel or Sylacouga contribute to our
Re: [meteorite-list] What are the top 10 most scientificallyimportant meteorites?
Dear Jason, List, Canyon Diablo... helped us to understand impact dynamics but as to how that plays into our understanding of the evolution of the solar system...it doesn't, really. Prior to the assertion that Meteor Crater was an impact feature, the concept of impact as a possible event was nil, non-existent, and when proposed was widely denied, pooh-pooh'ed -- an affront to the orderly and rational natural world. Barringer conceived of the crater as what we would call a particularly large impact pit, not an explosive crater, but the evidence drew him that way. Nininger was really the first to understand the possibility of impact as a geological process (without understanding the scale on which it was possible) and that understanding led straight to the late Gene Shoemaker, who single-handedly pushed a planet full of resistant scientists into the realization by patiently rubbing their noses in it for decades. Shoemaker's 1960 paper ending the 70-year dispute about the origin of Meteor Crater caused a sensation in geology, as it was the first definitive proof of an extraterrestrial impact on the Earth's surface. This was the first crater proved to be of impact origin. Proving that impact was a fundamental geological process would take decades longer. Paradigms don't always shift quickly. In the 1950's, the only cratered body known to science was the Moon, so presumably craters were an odd or unique feature in the Solar System, an individual characteristic of the Moon, not of planetary bodies generally. It was virtually universally understood that the 1000's of craters that covered the Moon were volcanic features. Our exploration of the Moon was substantially biased toward finding (mostly non-existent) evidence of volcanic activity. Even the first photos of craters on Mars in 1965 by Mariner 4 did not budge that mindset much. This was one of those you-had-to-be-there moments -- the shock and disbelief caused by craters on Mars (and the quivers of denial that followed) was profound, like being hit between the eyes with a two-by-four. Well, they were probably volcanic craters anyway... The 1970's competed the change of paradigm and the fact of impact as a geological process (the title of the book that nailed it down firmly). That almost every body in the Solar System with a solid surface is cratered is now a Ho Hum fact. The reason that you, Jason, can think it's not important is because you are on the modern side of the conceptual divide. Until the understanding of impact, solar system formation models were divided between accretion and coalescence. Very few people still believe planets formed like a dew drop any more. The change in formation theory walks hand-in-hand with impact theory. If Canyon Diablo was the catalyst for the recognition of impact processes in the Solar System -- and I think it was -- then it might well be the most significant in increasing our understanding of the evolution of our solar system. Sterling K. Webb - - Original Message - From: Jason Utas meteorite...@gmail.com To: Meteorite-list meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2009 5:08 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] What are the top 10 most scientificallyimportant meteorites? Hola All, I would have to respectfully disagree. The original post my Graham asked for a list of ten of the most important meteorites with regard to science, and he then went on to ask: Which ones have been the most significant in increasing our understanding of the evolution of our solar system, and what they have taught us? I believe that the implication of his email was not to ask for a list of meteorites that helped to further our acceptance of meteoritics as a field, but rather to obtain a list of the ten most scientifically interesting meteorites. And, to be perfectly frank, if L'Aigle had been any other type (iron, stony-iron, etc), the outcome of the situation would have been the same. As a meteorite, while it did help to open our eyes as to what was actually out there, it did little to tell us of the history of the formation of the solar system. And Michael's list is more of a list of the most beautiful/interesting meteorites from the point of view of a collector...it's just a different sort of list. Did Esquel or Sylacouga contribute to our knowledge about the early solar system? Not particularly, but they are two of the more desireable meteorites around, for non-scientific reasons. Canyon Diablo is interesting in its own right as a crater-forming meteorite, as it helped us to understand impact dynamics - but as to how that plays into our understanding of the evolution of the solar system...it doesn't, really. Regards, Jason On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 1:21 PM, Michael Blood mlbl...@cox.net wrote: Hi Jason and all, First of all, I think it should be mentioned that any such List is inevitably biased
Re: [meteorite-list] What are the top 10 most scientificallyimportant meteorites?
An adept postulate most erudite in its expression. I could not have put it better myself. Rob McC (I'm assuming that anyone not needing a dictionary for the above will realise I'm not being sarcastic) --- On Sun, 2/15/09, Sterling K. Webb sterling_k_w...@sbcglobal.net wrote: From: Sterling K. Webb sterling_k_w...@sbcglobal.net Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] What are the top 10 most scientificallyimportant meteorites? To: Jason Utas meteorite...@gmail.com, Meteorite-list meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Date: Sunday, February 15, 2009, 3:03 AM Dear Jason, List, Canyon Diablo... helped us to understand impact dynamics but as to how that plays into our understanding of the evolution of the solar system...it doesn't, really. Prior to the assertion that Meteor Crater was an impact feature, the concept of impact as a possible event was nil, non-existent, and when proposed was widely denied, pooh-pooh'ed -- an affront to the orderly and rational natural world. Barringer conceived of the crater as what we would call a particularly large impact pit, not an explosive crater, but the evidence drew him that way. Nininger was really the first to understand the possibility of impact as a geological process (without understanding the scale on which it was possible) and that understanding led straight to the late Gene Shoemaker, who single-handedly pushed a planet full of resistant scientists into the realization by patiently rubbing their noses in it for decades. Shoemaker's 1960 paper ending the 70-year dispute about the origin of Meteor Crater caused a sensation in geology, as it was the first definitive proof of an extraterrestrial impact on the Earth's surface. This was the first crater proved to be of impact origin. Proving that impact was a fundamental geological process would take decades longer. Paradigms don't always shift quickly. In the 1950's, the only cratered body known to science was the Moon, so presumably craters were an odd or unique feature in the Solar System, an individual characteristic of the Moon, not of planetary bodies generally. It was virtually universally understood that the 1000's of craters that covered the Moon were volcanic features. Our exploration of the Moon was substantially biased toward finding (mostly non-existent) evidence of volcanic activity. Even the first photos of craters on Mars in 1965 by Mariner 4 did not budge that mindset much. This was one of those you-had-to-be-there moments -- the shock and disbelief caused by craters on Mars (and the quivers of denial that followed) was profound, like being hit between the eyes with a two-by-four. Well, they were probably volcanic craters anyway... The 1970's competed the change of paradigm and the fact of impact as a geological process (the title of the book that nailed it down firmly). That almost every body in the Solar System with a solid surface is cratered is now a Ho Hum fact. The reason that you, Jason, can think it's not important is because you are on the modern side of the conceptual divide. Until the understanding of impact, solar system formation models were divided between accretion and coalescence. Very few people still believe planets formed like a dew drop any more. The change in formation theory walks hand-in-hand with impact theory. If Canyon Diablo was the catalyst for the recognition of impact processes in the Solar System -- and I think it was -- then it might well be the most significant in increasing our understanding of the evolution of our solar system. Sterling K. Webb - - Original Message - From: Jason Utas meteorite...@gmail.com To: Meteorite-list meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2009 5:08 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] What are the top 10 most scientificallyimportant meteorites? Hola All, I would have to respectfully disagree. The original post my Graham asked for a list of ten of the most important meteorites with regard to science, and he then went on to ask: Which ones have been the most significant in increasing our understanding of the evolution of our solar system, and what they have taught us? I believe that the implication of his email was not to ask for a list of meteorites that helped to further our acceptance of meteoritics as a field, but rather to obtain a list of the ten most scientifically interesting meteorites. And, to be perfectly frank, if L'Aigle had been any other type (iron, stony-iron, etc), the outcome of the situation would have been the same. As a meteorite, while it did help to open our eyes as to what was actually out there, it did little to tell us of the history of the formation of the solar system. And Michael's list is more of a list of the most beautiful/interesting meteorites from
Re: [meteorite-list] What are the top 10 most scientificallyimportant meteorites?
I would respectfully add Carancas, for it's rewriting of crater formation theory. Pete IMCA 1733 - Original Message - From: Pat Brown radio_ra...@yahoo.com To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com; ensorama...@ntlworld.com Sent: Friday, February 13, 2009 9:17 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] What are the top 10 most scientificallyimportant meteorites? OK Allende Murchison ALH84001 Tagish Lake Canyon Diablo (for it's Crater) Nakhla Calcalong Creek Orgueil Lost City (camera network data, orbit) Peekskill (videos, orbit data) --- On Fri, 2/13/09, ensorama...@ntlworld.com ensorama...@ntlworld.com wrote: From: ensorama...@ntlworld.com ensorama...@ntlworld.com Subject: [meteorite-list] What are the top 10 most scientifically important meteorites? To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Date: Friday, February 13, 2009, 3:55 PM Hi all, Just thought it might be interesting to discover list members opinions on what they would choose as the most important meteorites with regard to science? Which ones have been the most significant in increasing our understanding of the evolution of our solar system, and what they have taught us? Graham Ensor, UK. __ 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
