 |
MarsRock |
 |
| ...dedicated to the return of life to mars! | ||
|
Contents My Pet Rock Statement of Purpose Letters to Buck Letters to Hap Letters to Ron Letters to Jamie Letters to Others Letters to Alan Letters to Mike How to Join MarsRock MartianChronicle Common Links Micromike's Site Overview Please Help Home |
Letter to Alan 8
| Letter to Alan in May 1997 I forgot to tell you that Chris Romanek told me the test I needed is an oxygen isotope ratio. It seems material from Mars has a slightly higher ratio of O17 than does Earth rocks. Also, all I am willing to say at this point is that the rock did fall from the sky the night before I found it. I think the evidence indicates it probably came from Mars, so I just fell this is the best test at this point in time. It the sample shows a Mars type ratio or at least an un-Earthly ratio, then I think most people would be convinced for the moment. Any way, Chris agreed that it needs to be tested and said that he would try to test it this summer. He doesn’t have the equipment at his lab and must wait until he gets to NASA this summer. I would like to get the test done as soon as possible, because if this if from Mars, then NASA needs to study it before all these probes go to Mars. It much better if we have some idea what to expect before we get there. The photos I took were from the sample I have saved to send to you, if you decide you want to help with the tests. Thanks again.
|
.
| From: Treiman, Allan Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 1997 8:24 AM To: 'Mike Moore' Subject: RE: Possible meteorite
Thanks a lot. I'll look for your site in a day or two. Taking good photographs through a microscope is tough work, and congratulations on getting good pictures. Talk to you soon. Allan >---------- |
| >From: Mike Moore[SMTP:micromike@amaonline.com] >Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 1997 7:50AM >To: Treiman, Allan >Subject: RE: Possible meteorite > >Allen, > >I'm sorry it has taken me so long to get back to you. I have a lot of things >to do and everything has taken longer than I thought. I wanted to get good >pictures of the fusion crust and that took almost two weeks because all I >have is a toy microscope with a very simple camera attachment. I have no >control over exposure or focus and it was very frustrating. Now I have the >photos and some reports finished on paper, but I haven't gotten them into the >computer yet. I was hoping to e-mail the stuff to you, but I have decided it >is easier to bring the stuff up on a web site. It should be operational (at >least part of it) in a day or two. If you want to send me your address, I >will snail mail you the pictures and reports I have made. Otherwise, I'll >let you know by e-mail when the Mars portion of my web site becomes >available. My web site address is micromike.com. I have shown the rock to >Chris Romaneck and he believes the rock has flown through the air. Everyone >who sees it agrees although several local geologist believe it melted after >being ejected from a volcano. That can't be true, because the rock is filled >with sand and the sand has been melted also. This means the sand was laid >down before the rock came through the atmosphere. Thanks again. > >micromike > >---------- > |
| >From: treiman@LPI.JSC.NASA.GOV >Sent: Thursday, April 17, 1997 1:08 PM >Subject: Possible meteorite > > > >Dear Mr. Moore - > > Thank you for writing again. I realize it is frustrating to 'know' >something >to be true, and yet have experts disagree with you. It is really important >here, as a scientist, to ask yourself if the experts might be right and you >might be mistaken. > From your letter, it is clear that you have thought a lot about this >rock, and have had some good luck in finding a scientist to analyze >it for you. Getting a chemical analysis is really quite good, considering >how much it costs (in money and time) to do one. So, you overstate >the case when you say that "... I have had no luck in getting this thing >tested." > You are, of course, correct that we cannot have found all possible types >of meteorites, so yours could conceivably be one even though it doesn't >look like known varieties. But there are some characteristics that all >meteorites >share because they all must come through the Earth's atmosphere. It is basic >physics that they must be going at least 10 kilometers per second as they >hit >the Earth's atmosphere. And anything going that fast will heat up enormously > >as it enters the atmosphere. It will melt or burn, just like the Space >Shuttle tiles >you mention. This melting makes the fusion crust, a layer rich in glass on >the >outside of meteorites. [The word fusion means melted, it has nothing to do >with >nuclear fusion]. > If your rock doesn't have a fusion crust, it can't be a meteorite. Who >knows how it >got onto your ranch, but it didn't fall from space through the Earth's >atmosphere. If >the meteorite fell the day before you found it, is should have a fresh, very >shiny glass >fusion crust. Nearly all fusion crusts are black, but a few meteorites have >greenish >crusts. (And iron meteorites are a bit different, but your rock is not >iron.) If your rock >does not have a fresh, shiny, glassy crust, it cannot be a fresh meteorite >fall. On old >meteorites that have sat in the weather for many , many years, the fusion >crust >becomes rough and pitted, just like old bottle glass does. If the meteorite >has been out >a really long time, the fusion crust becomes just a smooth, rusty layer >around the >meteorite. > Some places, including west Texas, earth rocks get coated with a thin >dark layer. This >is called desert varnish, and may be from thin layers of bacteria that grow >on the rocks >whenever they get wet. But this layer is not fusion crust. > > Quite honestly, your description of the rock makes it seem EXTREMELY >unlikely that it >is a meteorite. Although many meteorite are volcanic rocks, only one or two >have pores in >them. A rock, like yours, with pores and passageways and thin walls seems >like a poor bet >to survive passing through the Earth's atmosphere. Remember from the film >Apollo 13, >that the astronauts had to hit the earth's atmosphere at just the exact >angle to keep from >being crushed? The same is true for rocks -- delicate structures would get >destroyed. >Likewise, sand in the rock, sand that could pour out, would not survive >entry. This sounds >much more like the rock was on Earth a long time perhaps in a river bed. > > I would look at a piece of the rock, if you would like, but I am not at >all hopeful that it is >a meteorite. I cannot promise that I will confirm what you already 'know' >about this rock. >I can only promise to look at it, do a few analyses if necessary, and report >back to you on >my opinion, as a person who has seen lots of meteorites, studied some of >them, and >understands something of where they come from and how they get here. But >there is a >catch. You say that you want someone to "work with you to test my >hypothesis...". I will >not look at your rock unless you can tell me what evidence would prove your >hypothesis >true, and what evidence you would accept that would prove the hypothesis >false. > > Yours, > Allan Treiman >> |
