[meteorite-list] Observed lunar meteorite impacts hit 100

From: Chris Peterson <clp_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 17:14:59 -0600
Message-ID: <018a01c8bb98$85423170$0a01a8c0_at_bellatrix>

Hi Mark-

There have been a few meteorites that some have speculated might be
related to showers. But most likely, none are.

Nobody even really knows if asteroids and comets are all that different,
other than comets containing volatiles. Recently, it has been suggested
that a few objects we consider asteroids may in fact be burned out
comets. And nobody really knows if the rocky material in comets is
actually fragile at all.

The best argument against shower-origin meteorites is velocity: most
shower members are simply traveling too fast to avoid burning up high in
the atmosphere. The few showers that have slow components also, for the
most part, are low activity- barely above the sporadic background.

The way I'd start a serious investigation of this would be to compare
fall dates and times with low velocity showers. Where you have a match,
it might be worth trying to determine if witness reports of the fireball
suggest a direction that is at least reasonably consistent with the
shower radiant.

Chris

*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com


----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Crawford" <mark at meteorites.cc>
To: <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 4:29 PM
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Observed lunar meteorite impacts hit 100


> This got me thinking... some of the lunar impacts are being attributed
> to well-known meteor showers.
>
> Are there any good candidates for (earthly) meteorites which may be
> part of such showers, and therefore potentially once part of the
> presumed parent body? I guess candidate criteria would be time of year
> and (at least rough visual) triangulation back to the radiant.
>
> Or as many/most showers are associated with comets rather than
> asteroids, is the material perhaps much more fragile and therefore
> less likely to reach the earth's surface?
>
> Mark
Received on Wed 21 May 2008 07:14:59 PM PDT