[meteorite-list] Novato update

From: Michael Farmer <mike_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Tue, 7 May 2013 11:02:40 +0300
Message-ID: <CD241793-A30E-4C46-B2B6-B7F9B13E3439_at_meteoriteguy.com>

Let me tell you all one thing.
50-60% of Chelyabinsk is comprised of impact-melt pieces, most of which have little or no crust, and are hard for almost anyone to identify as meteorites.
I have a piece my guide found that even the meteorite people had trouble identifying except for a tiny piece of metal protruding. It is almost a sphere of lava.
First piece of Novato was a joke, several media debacles that made a mess of things. Luckily the first piece which was discounted by scientists was not thrown away and the second piece was discarded only to be recovered from the trash before it was too late.
Please don't suggest Novato was handled in a professional way. The blimp was cool, but useless again. A lot more could have been found without the secrecy on the ground. Greed led to virtually no recoveries from a massive fireball.
Russia is pretty much just private hunters and very determined locals and some institutions, and plenty of data sharing and recoveries.
Private/scientific cooperation works when there is not an overlord:)
Michael Farmer

Sent from my iPhone

On May 7, 2013, at 10:52 AM, "Rob Matson" <mojave_meteorites at cox.net> wrote:

> Hi Jason,
>
> A few remarks on your recent email:
>
>> With regards to Novato: Without Dr. Jenniskens' efforts (published
>> fireball trajectory estimates and his description of what to look for),
>> Novato #1 would not have been recognized, and we do not know
>> whether or not any of the subsequent finds would have been made.
>
> Whether Petrus had published a trajectory or not, a trajectory *was*
> provided by me, just as I did for Sutter's Mill, Chelyabinsk, Mifflin and
> quite a few other falls over the last decade. So in the case of Novato,
> there was redundancy. Also, if not for the second find at Novato by
> a private hunter, the first might very well have gone unrecognized
> as a meteorite. Don't forget that Dr. Jenniskens initially misidentified
> it as being terrestrial.
>
>> Instead, thanks to the newspaper articles about the fireball (with
>> information from Dr. Jenniskens), Novato #1 was recovered.
>
> I agree that what Petrus should be most commended for is generating
> excellent PR in the Bay Area which no doubt contributed to that
> initial house-hitter being suspected by the homeowner as a
> meteorite candidate.
>
>> Once we had that data point, we knew where to look.
>
> People knew where to look, with or without that data point -- at
> least to within a couple miles crosstrack.
>
>> It also gave us greater incentive to look in general.
>
> There's no denying that there is always nagging uncertainty prior to
> making that first find. That first find is always a game-changer.
>
>> Stanfield will be another case of a poorly documented fall unless the
>> coordinates are eventually made 'public' on Galactic Analytics.
>
> There seems to be a bit of animosity directed toward the Stanfield
> fall, or at least it has become a bit of a whipping boy. I don't recall
> seeing similar negative remarks being made about Ash Creek or
> Whetstone Mountains or Grimsby or Buzzard Coulee or dare-I-say
> Chelyabinsk. Why pick on Stanfield?
>
>> I'm not saying there are rules that must be adhered to or anything
>> like that, but the way things are generally being done is unscientific.
>> If data is being lost, it's a shame.
>
> No data is being lost, any more than data at any of the other falls
> I mentioned has been lost.
>
> Cheers,
> Rob
>
>
> ______________________________________________
>
> Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Received on Tue 07 May 2013 04:02:40 AM PDT