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

Re: tektites as silica meteorites

>I have seen the same statement about tektites being silica meteorites. I
>would never personally call them that but if a meteorite is an object that
>passes through the earth's atmosphere to land on the ground from space,
>then certainly
>some tektites clearly fit the definition. We know from their ablated
>surface and flange that australites have made a hypersonic passage through
>the atmosphere. The question is how long does something need to be in space
>(even near space) to qualify as a meteorite when it returns.

It is clear that the tektites are involved with an impact on Earth, having been 
melted and traveled through the Earth's atmosphere.  Some of the tektites
have even been associated with specific craters.  Many of the tektites
probably did not even reach space, though it is possible a small
number of them may have.  Calling them silica meteorites is I think
incorrect, as they may not have ever been in space.

It is also clear tektites are not from the Moon.  The composition of the
lunar samples returned from the Apollo missions do not match the composition
of tektites. The 12 known lunar meteorites (none of them tektites) 
do match the Apollo samples.  This is a very strong case against
tektites originating from the Moon. Outside of speculation, I know
of no data supporting a lunar origin for tektites.  

It is also interesting to note that no Earth meteorites have been found (stony
rocks), though there should be some that exist.  I'd assume they haven't
been found yet because an Earth meteorite would have to be a very recent
fall, as once it loses its fusion crust due to exposure to weather and
the elements, it would be indistinguishable from a regular Earth rock.

Ron Baalke