---------"It's like the little green men don't want us Earthlings to get the celestial body," Maksim Shipulin, one of the divers, commented to Rossiyskaya Gazeta. "We thought we'd be able to get the big meteorite from the depth of 14 meters, but it's being sucked in deeper, and we are now talking about 16 to 20 meters."------------
Tony Forsyth 05.10.2013 20:35 Not trying to be cynical but this whole story sounds like a PR beatup and doesn't sound true. Sucked down to 20 metres? Maybe it will suck down so far as to be not recovered, but make a good TV story anyway while they talk about it.
Sparky
Re: Feb 15 Meteorite(s) hit Russia - Analysis
Ummm, how did the "meteorite" get buried under 2.5 meters of silt?
but it's being sucked in deeper,
That area may contain a quick condition..
kiwi
Re: Feb 15 Meteorite(s) hit Russia - Analysis
Sparky wrote:
Ummm, how did the "meteorite" get buried under 2.5 meters of silt?
but it's being sucked in deeper,
That area may contain a quick condition..
But a ton of other crap just sat there?
While the biggest prize so far eluded the divers, they have found eight smaller fragments of the meteorite, the biggest one weighing just under 5kg, which is currently the largest fragment of the Chelyabinsk meteorite found. Their other catch includes plenty of garbage and a large number of magnets – the remainder of the winter enthusiastic hunt for smaller meteorite fragments by various entrepreneurs.
CharlesChandler
Re: Feb 15 Meteorite(s) hit Russia - Analysis
While the biggest prize so far eluded the divers, they have found eight smaller fragments of the meteorite, the biggest one weighing just under 5kg, which is currently the largest fragment of the Chelyabinsk meteorite found.
My guess is that the smaller fragments will be showing up on e-bay soon, while the larger fragments will be going into private collections. And the London-based marketing firm that is managing this told the divers to not find the big one yet — it will go for a lot more money at auction if they have to dig really deep for it. Are any of these things actually from the meteorite? Here's the marketing plan: buy a boulder cheap, and if you can get a scientist to certify that it's a meteorite, it will instantly double in value. If not, carve it up into pieces, give them names, and sell them as pet rocks. And where did the Ruskies learn such free market tactics? From us!
Maol
Re: Feb 15 Meteorite(s) hit Russia - Analysis
CharlesChandler wrote:
According to scientists, the huge chunk, weighting hundreds of metric tons, is buried under a 2.5-meter (8.2-foot) layer of silt.
Ummm, how did the "meteorite" get buried under 2.5 meters of silt?
And I agree with Gary about the hole in the ice. The high-velocity impact of a meteorite "weighing several hundreds of metric tons" would have created waves that would have fractured the ice across the entire lake.
This sounds like a science funding scam to me.
Because, when it landed in the water it was hot, very hot, and it boiled he water around it for a long time as it cooled, probably several minutes for the smaller pieces and perhaps hours for very large ones. The steam propelled boiling water out from under the hot chunks of meteorite and the hot water carried sediment with it, blowing an ever deeper hole as long as the boiling continued. The sediment probably didn't rise very far above the chunks before the boiling water cooled as it mingled with the lake water and the dirt settled back down and buried the pieces as they cooled. .
GaryN
Re: Feb 15 Meteorite(s) hit Russia - Analysis
Ummm, how did the "meteorite" get buried under 2.5 meters of silt?
The piece recovered so far looks to me, from as much as can be determined from the image, to have been formed by EM processes from the sediment of the lake bed. Mechanically, a meteorite travelling at probably around 1000 Km/hr, and being hot, would have shattered to little pieces on hitting the water. At those speeds it may as well be concrete that is being hit, the water would not just part and let the object through. If they do ever get the big piece out, it will probably show the same composition, and it will be interesting to hear what any 'experts' might say, as, in my non-expert opinion, probably many genuine meteorites that reach the surface have been so transformed that the observed composition can not be said with any certainty to be that of the object before interaction with Earths atmosphere.
GaryN
Re: Feb 15 Meteorite(s) hit Russia - Analysis
Russia pulls huge 'meteor chunk' from lake
The rock crumbled into several chunks as scientists began lifting it from the ground with the help of levers and ropes.
Crumbled? It survived a high speed impact with ice and water, but crumbled when they lifted it out? Doesn't sound right to me. I look forward to scientific analysis.
Maol
Re: Feb 15 Meteorite(s) hit Russia - Analysis
What is the internal temperature of an object like this when it first enters the atmosphere? The heat of entry would heat the surface rapidly and the result is tremendous thermal stress between the hot exterior and relatively cold interior. How hot do you suppose the surface of this thing this thing was when it hit the lake? It appears this is a stony - as in non-metallic - meteorite. Depending on the material configuration of this mass, when it became immersed in the freezing lake water the rapid cooling could cause it to fracture or crumble easily, much like putting a hot ceramic straight from the oven into cold water or pouring cold water on hot rocks surrounding a campfire.
reka
Re: Feb 15 Meteorite(s) hit Russia - Analysis
GaryN wrote: This site is covering the removal process:
Probable Fragments of Chelyabinsk Meteorite Lifted From Lake
I am not saying that this is NOT a chunk of the meteor that fell earlier this year in Russia, but is it possible that it NOT from that event?
Is it possible that this meteor, also like the 1908 Tunguska event, might not have been a meteor?
Yeah, yeah I know, there are all sorts of theories as to what is was, but I seem to remember that the Tunguska 'meteor' changed direction. Which would indicate intent, which indicates intelligence.
Only four minerals - plagioclase feldspar, pyroxene, olivine, and ilmenite - account for 98-99% of the crystalline material of the lunar crust. [Material at the lunar surface contains a high proportion of non-crystalline material, but most of this material is glass that formed from melting of rocks containing the four major minerals.] The remaining 1-2% is largely potassium feldspar, oxide minerals such as chromite, pleonaste, and rutile, calcium phosphates, zircon, troilite, and iron metal. Many other minerals have been identified, but most are rare and occur only as very small grains interstitial to the four major minerals.
Some of the most common minerals at the surface of the Earth are rare or have never been found in lunar samples. These include quartz, calcite, magnetite, hematite, micas, amphiboles, and most sulfide minerals. Many terrestrial minerals contain water as part of their crystal structure. Micas and amphiboles are common examples. Hydrous (water containing) minerals have Only four minerals - plagioclase feldspar, pyroxene, olivine, and ilmenite - account for 98-99% of the crystalline material of the lunar crust. [Material at the lunar surface contains a high proportion of non-crystalline material, but most of this material is glass that formed from melting of rocks containing the four major minerals.] The remaining 1-2% is largely potassium feldspar, oxide minerals such as chromite, pleonaste, and rutile, calcium phosphates, zircon, troilite, and iron metal. Many other minerals have been identified, but most are rare and occur only as very small grains interstitial to the four major minerals.
Some of the most common minerals at the surface of the Earth are rare or have never been found in lunar samples. These include quartz, calcite, magnetite, hematite, micas, amphiboles, and most sulfide minerals. Many terrestrial minerals contain water as part of their crystal structure. Micas and amphiboles are common examples. Hydrous (water containing) minerals have
There is probably a better thread to post this, but I have nothing else to add, and I'd rather watch some vids.
viscount aero
Re: Feb 15 Meteorite(s) hit Russia - Analysis
Meteor/fireball over LA last night has same dual flash ionization characteristics as Russian meteor and other clips posted herein from other events. Note the dual flash and bulges in the ionized entry tail:
If it was to be shown that most meteors produce those flashes at a constant altitude, then I would have to think there is a region with a much higher electron density, perhaps at the mesosphere-stratosphere boundary?
I just had an email reply from Mr Korotev in Saint Louis:
Meteorites hit the ground at terminal velocity, 100-200 mph. All meteorites that we have impacted at that speed.
I have never heard anyone else suggest that electrical discharge was involved with forming meteorites. Interesting idea.
Encouraging not to get panned anyway, like I usually do with such questions!
He sent me another couple of links that I haven't checked out yet. Also, it seems that lithification by magnetic pulses has been observed and documented, even with Lunar soil samples, and such a process has been considered as the cause of the remnant magnetism of the lunar surface. A step towards considering electrical discharge for lunar surface features?
