[meteorite-list] FW: Re: Kalahari Lunar

From: Sterling K. Webb <sterling_k_webb_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 22:02:49 -0500
Message-ID: <15c801c77be5$e40b6df0$0e2f4842_at_ATARIENGINE>

Hi,

    I recall, but cannot find in the archives (too long
ago) of the List, a thread that batted back and forth
rumors about Kalahari 008 and 009 having been found
elsewhere and having been "planted" in the Kalahari.
It was vague, certainly speculative, and nobody claimed
to have come up with the inside scoop.

http://www.uni-muenster.de/imperia/md/content/planetologie/pdf/bischoff/meteorites_from_botswana.pdf
  says "In 1999, the first meteorites from Botswana
were recovered. Most samples (seven) were purchased
from natives in the small village of Kuke. We suggest
that these samples were found close to Kuke in the
Kalahari desert. As reported by the finder, the other
four samples were recovered during geological field
work in various areas of Botswana in April (Mabe),
September (Kalahari 008 and 009), and November
1999 (Matisama). Kalahari 008 and Kalahari 009
were found close to the small village of Kuke and
are chemically and petrographically different lunar
rocks. However, we suggest that both samples
represent distinct lithologies of one meteoroid and
that the lunar sample broke apart at the find site.
The other nine samples are H-group ordinary chondrites.
Based on different petrologic types, the degrees of shock
metamorphism and weathering pairing of most samples
can be ruled out. We conclude that only Kalahari 004
and Kalahari 005 are paired."

    So, there were many other meteorites (H) that came from
the Kuke area initially and were offered for sale. It would
seem that the finder then searched the area further and found
four more, including the lunar duo.


http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/metsoc2005/pdf/5059.pdf
     "Two of these samples were found close to the small village of
Kuke (Kalahari 008 and Kalahari 009) and are chemically and
petrographically different lunar rocks. However, it is suggested
that both samples represent distinct lithologies of one meteoroid
that broke apart at the find site... During geological field work
Kalahari 008 and 009 were found roughly 50 m apart in front
of a small dune in September 1999."

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/metsoc2005/pdf/5270.pdf says:
    "The combined 26Al and 36Cl 4pi exposure ages are
350?120 yr for Kalahari 008 and 220?40 yr for Kalahari 009
that is the shortest exposure age of any meteorite. If both
objects are lunar meteorites, the transition time from the Moon
to the earth was 230?90 yr and ejection depth was more than
>1,100 g/cm2 on the Moon. Small amounts of cosmogenic
nuclides are also produced in-situ on the Earth's surface.
The 26Al and 36Cl concentrations in Kalahari 009 can be
explained by ~0.3 Myr exposure time in the Kalahari Desert
(1,000 m elevation and 21?S). Long terrestrial ages, 0.3-0.5 Myr,
were found for Dhofar lunar and Martian meteorites... For
the case of Kalahari 009, cosmogenic nuclides could have
been produced on the Earth's surface, without previous
exposure in space. Cosmogenic nuclide results do not exclude
that Kalahari 009 is a terrestrial object. However, the 36Cl
concentration in Kalahari 008 is ~15% higher than saturation
of 36Cl production on the Earth's surface, therefore
Kalahari 008 was exposed in space."

    So, if I wanted to plant a 30-pound chuck of the Moon
in Botswana or anywhere else, like my back yard, where
would I go to get one? Inquiring minds want to know...


Sterling K. Webb
-------------------------------------------------------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Farmer" <meteoriteguy at yahoo.com>
To: <debfred at att.net>; "meteorite list"
<meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 7:18 PM
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] FW: Re: Kalahari Lunar


I have heard that this area would be nearly impossible
to find meteorites. It is clear that they are not from
that area.
Michael Farmer
--- debfred at att.net wrote:

>
>
>
>
>
> debfred at att.net wrote:
>
> Randy and List, Last July Chauncey Walden and I
> drove all the way around the
> reported find location of these Kalahari Lunars.
> This part of the Central Kalahari Nature
> Reserve (national not private) is not a sandy
> desert like those far to the north or the Namib to
> the west. In this location is the ground is almost
> totally covered in knee high grass and scattered
> trees. We did not see any igneous rocks in this area
> in fact there are not many rocks of any type in this
> area. If I remember correctly it is part of the
> worlds largest body of sand. So any rock would look
> odd and stand out. I know it was totally different
> from what I had envisioned and hoped for. Tough area
> to hunt meteorites. Much better for photographing
> lions and cheetah.
> Regards, Fred Olsen, Denver
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>

______________________________________________
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Received on Tue 10 Apr 2007 11:02:49 PM PDT