[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Monahans and sample curation

Steve and list,

responses are embedded in the text below.

jeff

>Hello Jeff and the List,
>
>I am curious about some of the things you mentioned above.  
>
>Alan Rubin from UCLA contacted me, as soon as he heard the wonderful news
>about how the boys triumphed in getting the Monahans (b)  [wink, wink!  I bet
>if I mention it enough times that way, "Monahans (b)" will at least get on
the
>synonym list!], cautioning me about the dangers of mixing water with these
>georgeous blue salt crystals (which we have been discussing at great length
>here.)  He also had made the very polite request that at least 20g of the
>meteorite should be given to one of the "research collections" in the U.S.
>(such as the Smithsonian.)  I told him that NASA already had 20g of it, and I
>asked if they counted as a "research collection?"  He responded by saying:
>
><< I've talked to several people about this.  Everett Gibson is not a
>research collection...  In fact, JSC does not have a meteorite collection
>outside of the Antarctic meteorites.  Not a single non-Antarctic meteorite is
>housed there and, there are no plans to start assembling a non-Antarctic
>collection. 
>>>

All true.

>
>I would assume that there is no other laboratory in the world as sterile as
>the one you described in your post above.  So if it is really all that
>important to treat certain meteorites (such as the Monahans) with such care,
>why doesn't EVERY collection in the U.S. (Or the World for that matter) keep
>ALL their stuff down at JSC, (or at least all the fragile stuff)?  Or why
>don't they all build labs will provide the same anti-contamination security
>levels that NASA has?

Houston probably does have the best facility in the world for curating
meteorites.  However, other places like the Smithsonian are quite well
prepared to do a fine job of protecting rare and fragile specimens as well.
The reasons why other major collections are not sent to Houston for storage
are abundant.  Two major ones are: 1) JSC's Curatorial Facility is not
funded to do the curation of anything but Antarctic meteorites, moon rocks,
and 
cosmic dust.  They don't have the space, personnel, time, money, or mandate 
to do much else.  I'm sure deals could be cut with them to do tasks on a 
limited basis, and I know that they would have been pleased to handle 
Monahans (1998).  2) Most of what is in major research collections is old, 
and has been in unregulated storage for decades.  There is little motivation 
or need to start treating such samples differently now.  Places like the
Smithsonian have now moved to modern curation methods, and are easily
able to give special handling to precious specimens.  The same is true
elsewhere (but not everywhere). 

>
>I suggested to Dr. Rubin that since NASA submitted the information to the
>Nomenclature Committee AND since they have written a paper for the
>Meteoritical Society Meeting next month, that they should be very happy, and
>even very eager, to donate their 20g uncontaminated piece of the Monahans
>(stone), as the protocol suggests, to the Smithsonian or one of the other
>"real" research collections.  But if these "real" research collections are
not
>capable of properly preserving the Monahans (H5), then where should it go?
>
You speak of NASA as though it were a person.  It's not.  I can't address
their internal policies.  In my opinion, that 20 g piece belongs either
in their Curatorial Facility or at the Smithsonian (the only two
US government meteorite curation facilities).  Many other 
places could do what it takes in this case to curate the specimen:  storage 
and handling ONLY in a nitrogen or other inert atmosphere, and cutting and 
sample preparation under anhydrous conditions.  Since I am not in any
way connected with a meteorite collection (private or public), I would hope
that anybody out there who needs advice about what would be best for 
their specimens might ask me.

>
>On a side note, a few days ago I quoted (or probably misquoted) a figure of
>$90/g that it costs NASA for each specimen they bring back from Antarctica.
>Does ANYONE know how much money has been spent on all the Antarctic missions?
>Does anyone know the total of the number of grams of meteorites the Antarctic
>expeditions have recovered?  (Bernd??  Ron??  Anyone??)   

You can download a spreadsheet of the complete antarctic meteorite
data from ftp://www-curator.jsc.nasa.gov/Curator/metbull.xls
to get the masses.  As for the money, direct your question to Ralph
Harvey (rph@po.cwru.edu), the PI of the collection program.

>
>If NASA would be willing to be the top bidder for the Monahans (fall) to
start
>their NEW Non-Antarctic Collection, wouldn't that be great?  And I would
think
>if they would offer even the average price they spend for the Antarctic
>specimens to these boys, that wouldn't be too much to ask, would it?  

Look at this another way.  If there is a spectacular scientific discovery to 
be made on, e.g., halite in Monahans (1998), but no piece is ever 
properly curated, then that discovery does not get made, and Monahans
(1998) remains an ordinary chondrite in every sense of the word.  There
has sometimes got to be compromise.

>
>After all, the Ward County meteorite would then never have to leave
Humid-less
>Texas, and the boys would probably be willing to drive it down to Houston, so
>NASA doesn't have to waste all that money in jet fuel and pilot expenses to
>fly back out to Monahans in the private jet to pick it up again!
>
>Just a suggestion!
>
>But seriously, is any collection capable enough to preserve this one?
>
>Steve
>www.meteoritebroker.com
>
>