Talk:Meteorite/Archive 1

Archive 1

Tagish Lake meteorite

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tagish_Lake_meteorite Can this go under "notable" meteorites here? 68.54.17.184 16:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding news stories

Everybody likes to see recent news stories folded into Wikipedia articles. However, they should not be presented as facts until they are substantiated, either in the scientific literature or by overwhelming evidence. Recently, there were additions about a supposed meteorite fall in Scandinavia and two new iron meteorites found by the Mars Rovers. Neither of these has been in any way verified yet. I think it would be better to have a News section to place things like this in, so I added one. I hope this meets with everybody's approval. -- Jeff Grossman (jngrossman) 14 June 2006

Changed the total observed meteorites to "1051" to account for this one: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/20/AR2010012004767.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.191.209.58 (talk) 19:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Heating

While the meteor page emphasizes that it is ram pressure and not friction which heats the meteor, the meteorite page says it is caused by drag and friction. Perhaps the two pages could be reconciled? Also, a "see also" link to the Meteor page would seem a natural addition. --togr

Processing

Why is there no discussion on this page about primitive versus processed type meteorites? Composition is certainly important, but the processing of the content tells us a lot about early solar system formation as well. Someone with specific expertise please add it? Eventually I might have to, but it's really not my field. Myrrhlin 12:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Tunguska proven?

Was Tunguska ever proven to be a meteorite impact? I was under the impression that the cause was still unknown...

Hmmm. Provided it was not a spontaneous phenomenon native to the planet (which seems a remote possibility) it was likely something to do with a meteorite. I always thought that a meteorite was thought to have caused the effect (which was centered in the air by the way) but the HOW of it remains a mystery. Still, i'm not really high on it. Please fill in other interesting impacts :-) --Anders Törlind

- AFAIK the general consensus is that it was a comet fragment. --Eitheladar 10:28, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

- Pedantically, meteorite is the rock that landed on earth, while it is in the air it is a meteoroid. 130.39.188.130 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC).

On other planets?

Here's a question; are bits of stuff that fall on other planets also called meteorites? Or is this a geocentric term? Dictionary.com seems to suggest this, but doesn't say it explicitly one way or the other. Bryan Derksen 21:49 Jul 23, 2002 (PDT)

What else would you call them ? On the other hand, the asteroid article implies that the distinction between meteoroids (less than about 50 m) and asteroids (more than about 50 m) is geocentric:

• micro-meteroids are so small that they completely burn up when entering earth's atmosphere (becoming meteors).
• meteoroids almost completely burn up when entering earth's atmosphere (also called a meteors during that time), but at least some of solid part reaches the ground (becoming a meteorite).
• asteroids are large enough to make it all the way through earth's atmosphere without significant loss (becoming a ____).

--DavidCary 21:02, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Everybody calls Heat Shield Rock (meteorite found on Mars) a meteorite. 193.171.121.30 18:40, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That would seem to imply that the first sentence of the article is incorrect: "A meteorite is a natural object originating in outer space that survives an impact with the Earth's surface without being destroyed". Should it be changed to say the surface of a planet (or moon or dwarf planet or...)? 203.12.172.254 (talk) 03:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Widmanstatten structure

What's the deal with the label of Image:Nickel-Iron-Meteorite-Slice.jpg? It claimed to "display characteristic Widmanstatten structure", but I for one can't see the least sign of it. Weird color for a metal meteorite as well. A Widmanstatten pattern should rather look something like the iron meteorite on http://internt.nhm.ac.uk/jdsml/research-curation/projects/metcat/image.dsml?picName=iron (Natural History Museum website). Deuar 11:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Invitation

Work is currently in progress on a page entitled Views of Creationists and mainstream scientists compared. Also currently being worked upon is Wikipedia: NPOV (Comparison of views in science) giving guidelines for this type of page. It is meant to be a set of guidelines for NPOV in this setting. People knowledgable in many areas of science and the philosophy of science are greatly needed here. And all are needed to ensure the guidelines correctly represent NPOV in this setting.  :) Barnaby dawson 21:32, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps the title should rather be Views of creationsts and scientists compared to begin with? Deuar 20:50, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Asteroids vs. meteoroids

Actually an asteroid is, by geologic definition, an object that is from the asteroid belt; any non-planetoid object not originating from the asteroid belt is a meteoroid, so long as it is less than approximately 1000 km in diameter. (excepting comets). Once any natural, extraterrestrial object enters the Earth's atmosphere it is considered a meteor, no matter what size or composition. Once the object reaches the surface of the planet, it is referred to as a meteorite. Typically objects smaller than 2 m in diameter will not survive to the surface, and objects larger than 50 m in diameter will vaporise on impact, leaving no meteorite material to analyse. A collision with an object larger than 1000 km in diameter could be called a planetary collision, or planetary impact, but the object would generally not be referred to as a meteorite (although that designation would not strictly be incorrect).

I'm a bit confused by your terminology - what is the difference between planetoid and non-planetoid objects originating outside the asteroid belt? Deuar 20:50, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I also am not in agreement with your use of terminology, for a different reason. Perhaps a minor point, but: There are plenty of objects in the solar system which are called asteroids but are NOT in the asteroid belt. The term asteroid distinguishes an object by composition, not by orbit. During the formation of the solar system, composition was somewhat related to orbit, but gravitational interactions have changed the orbits of lots of these "minor planets". Other terms used distinguish an object by orbit, eg, "trojans", "apollos", "centaurs", "plutinos", etc. (and i'd be surprised if it was geologists that defined the term "asteroid"...) Myrrhlin 03:17, 04 October 2006 (UTC)

Improvement drive

Asteroid deflection strategies has been nominated on WP:IDRIVE. Support it with your vote if you want it to be improved.--Fenice 22:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Size of meteoroids

There seemed to be some exaggeration regarding how often a large stony or icy meteoroid is disrupted in the atmosphere: "In contrast, even relatively large comets or stony meteoroids, up to millions of tons, are frequently disrupted in the atmosphere, and do not make impact craters". The Tunguska event is thought to have been caused by a body about 50 m across. With a density of 3 g/cm³ this would be about 200 000 tons. So how common is a million ton impact?? Not very (at least in the commonly used sense of the term), I conclude. Deuar 19:56, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Contradiction between articles

This page states that meteorites prior to landing on Earth are called Meteoroids; the Meteoroids article states that because of the small size of Meteoroids (using Beech and Steel's definition, which has a maximum 10 metre diameter), no meteorite was originally a meteoroid as objects smaller than 50 metres diameter would completely burn up (therefore meteorites are caused by small asteroids hitting the Earth). Guess there's no easy answer to this with no officially accepted definition, but I don't think this article should make the statement it does without mentioning that it might be questioned.

This was due to a blatantly incorrect statement in the Meteoroid article, which I deleted. --JeffG 02:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Commercial or noncommercial?

We need to avoid a revert war and agree on what content is appropriate. The guidelines for Wikipedia links say to avoid:

• • Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services. For example, instead of linking to a commercial bookstore site, use the "ISBN" linking format, giving readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources.
  • Links to sites with objectionable amounts of advertising

The two links in question are both borderline. The Meteorite Times page would probably be acceptable, but its home page (after the Enter page) places excessive advertising where the main content should be and the content is off on the sidebar. It thus appears to be primarily an advertising site. Aerolite Meteorites does appear to be a commercial site aimed at selling meteorites. Other than self-promotion, the main page features a sale catalog, special deals, gift ideas, a preferred customer list, and credit card logos. This site also does have some appropriate, linkable content buried in the header and footer bars.

I think both sites cross the line, but can we hear from others before deleting them again? --JeffG 12:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

What I don't understand is why someone (Geoking42, that is) keeps deleting clearly non-commercial links to the Natural History Museum, and (before) others. Looks vandal-like, and i'm restoring them. Deuar 16:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Micro-meteor(ite) shielding

I have read several news articles in the last year (latest example) that refer to Micro-meteor(ite) shielding on the [ISS]. What is this technology and how does it work. I have no been able to find any information about it anywhere, especially on wikipedia. I am really curious as to what it is and how it works... Could anybody make an article about this or include info about in within this article if more appropriate? Thanks Butnotthehippo 07:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it's just thin panels or screens installed above the structural skin. When a small meteorite hits something even as thin as aluminum foil, the heat of the impact turns it to a ball of gas which can't penetrate far. (SEWilco 18:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC))

Copyvio

Part of the text referred to the site http://www.monnigmuseum.tcu.edu/oscar.htm. However, the text was a literal copy of the text from this site, and therefore I have removed it as copyvio. Jan.Kamenicek 10:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

If the other site copied this article, that is allowed if they followed the license. A link to such a page should be deleted as redundant. (SEWilco 18:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC))

No, somebody copied the text from the monnigmuseum site (signed by Arthur J. Ehlmann and Timothy J. McCoy) here, which is not allowed. Jan.Kamenicek 18:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah. Yes, text flowing in that direction is not so good. (SEWilco 18:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC))

Mystery illness strikes after meteorite hits Peruvian village

Ok, I am not a Wikipedian anymore, but this may be worthy of some mention? We should follow this story for a week to see where it leads, and write a paragraph. Sounds like a moderately big meteor strike. RK

Mystery illness after meteor lands —Preceding unsigned comment added by RK (talk • contribs) 12:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

== Meteorite Lands in Puno, Peru Near Bolivia, Citizens Report Radiation Sickness ==

(LIP-ir) - Peru's Andina News Agency reported today that Puno's Regional Health Directorate sent a group of specialists to the Carancas community in the province of Chucuito near Bolivia to take samples of a meteorite that supposedly landed in the area...

Meteorites lands in Peru, near Bolivia

• Thanks. Reports of "headaches, diarrhea and vomiting" and nattering of radiation illness. But no mention of other radiation effects. The rock had something toxic which got in their digestive system; current reports don't mention tears and trouble breathing so probably not hydrogen sulfide. Police tried to get samples; probably someone will get samples soon enough to find whatever is volatile enough to be escaping the hole. Assuming, of course, that the rock didn't land on something which someone buried. (SEWilco 18:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC))
  • One report mentions a sulfurous smell, which could explain several things. Awaiting more detailed analysis. (SEWilco 18:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC))

• Event covered in 2007 Peruvian meteorite event article. (SEWilco 15:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC))

Freeden Seamounts

Could someone please add to an appropriate place in the article that the most meteorite-rich region known on the Earth's surface is the Freeden Seamounts in the Southern Pacific? [1]. Thanks. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 12:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Siderolite

I have created a redirect page to this article from siderolite, which the OED defines as "a meteorite composed of a mixed mass of iron and stone." I don't know whether it is a term used scientifically these days, or where it might fall in the classification. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable would like to include it somewhere.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Types

According to the article:

About 8% of the meteorites that fall on Earth are achondrites... About 5% of meteorites that fall are iron... Stony-iron meteorites constitute the remaining 1%

So, the various types make up 14%? There is no mention of how many meteorites are condrites and other types. This is severely messed up. Senor Cuete (talk) 21:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Commercial Advertising on the Talk Page

The post on this talk page, with link to "the first biggest italian meteorite collection in private sector", which was posted by an unregistered user with a Telecom Italia IP address (82.88.123.236) is a blatant advertisement. I intend to remove it as well as any other advertisements on this page. Geogene (talk) 23:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

what magical or otherworldly etc properties do meteorites have?

What special magical or otherworldly properties do meteorites have; are they stronger than all known substances, natural and artificial; if they are unbreakable, what happens if you try to break one meteorite with another - neither of them will break, or both? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.153.234.218 (talk) 10:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Meteorites can be big or small.

The first paragraph says, "Meteorites can be big or small". That's why I read Wikipedia. It always has the best mind-blowing facts.

75.152.187.27 (talk) 01:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)