[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Monahans and sample curation

In a message dated 6/12/98 7:50:56 AM Central Daylight Time,
jgrossman@usgs.gov writes:

<< 
 I'm going to answer the question about NASA directly, but also use this 
 as a vehicle to do some preaching (mostly to the choir, I hope).
 
 NASA/JSC goes to great lengths to avoid laboratory contamination of 
 its Antarctic meteorites.  Virtually anything you do to a meteorite
 has the potential to introduce terrestrial material into the meteorite,
 or alter extraterrestrial minerals.  And it's not just mundane issues
 like how to preserve halite crystals that you have to worry about.  We
 can now do "ultra-low-level" analyses of chemical elements, isotopes,
 organic constituents, etc., that require extraordinary care in the
 handling of valuable meteorites specimens if meaningful results are
 to be obtained.
 
 The way I understand it, NASA/JSC people divide samples by mechanical 
 methods, like gentle crushing or rock trimmers, or with unlubricated
 saws for large specimens.  They have manufactured their own rock trimmer 
 parts out of steel with known trace element content, and
 have analyzed their saw blades as well.  They have even
 studied the lubricants on moving parts of rock splitters as potential
 contaminants.  They have looked at how paint on the laboratory walls 
 may contribute to sample contamination. Samples are stored in nitrogen-
 flushed cases. Thin sections of meteorites with water soluble minerals 
 are prepared with organic solvents and lubricants (yes, water soluble 
 minerals survive even in Antarctic meteorites). 
 
 The result of NASA's methods is to produce specimens of the greatest
 scientific usefulness, but sometimes of diminished aesthetic value (i.e.,
 forget about nice, thin, parallel slices of a main mass that NASA could 
 sell in the gift shop, God forbid).  
 
 Obviously, this level of contamination control and care in sample
 storage/handling is beyond the means of most people reading this list.
 That's why, when an interesting and potentially scientifically
 valuable specimen like Monahans (1998) comes along, it's really
 important for the finders/collectors/dealers who obtain the specimen
 to cooperate with research laboratories to make sure that at least a
 reasonably sized piece is well-curated from a scientific standpoint.
 One should not forget that the collectability and economic value
 of meteorites are tied directly to their scientific value, which can
 only be fully realized with proper scientific curation in a facility
 that makes material freely available to researchers.
 
 I'm sure that, in the case of Monahans (1998), many research labs would
 be willing to assist in properly subdividing a specimen in exchange for
 being allowed to keep and curate a small piece.  Deals like this are
 clearly "win-win" situations for both collectors and scientists, and I
 hope they can be a routine part of the discovery and initial-description
 process of EVERY new meteorite that lands in private hands (so to speak).
 
 jeff
  >>

Hello Jeff and the List,

I am curious about some of the things you mentioned above.  

Alan Rubin from UCLA contacted me, as soon as he heard the wonderful news
about how the boys triumphed in getting the Monahans (b)  [wink, wink!  I bet
if I mention it enough times that way, "Monahans (b)" will at least get on the
synonym list!], cautioning me about the dangers of mixing water with these
georgeous blue salt crystals (which we have been discussing at great length
here.)  He also had made the very polite request that at least 20g of the
meteorite should be given to one of the "research collections" in the U.S.
(such as the Smithsonian.)  I told him that NASA already had 20g of it, and I
asked if they counted as a "research collection?"  He responded by saying:

<< I've talked to several people about this.  Everett Gibson is not a
research collection...  In fact, JSC does not have a meteorite collection
outside of the Antarctic meteorites.  Not a single non-Antarctic meteorite is
housed there and, there are no plans to start assembling a non-Antarctic
collection. 
>>

I would assume that there is no other laboratory in the world as sterile as
the one you described in your post above.  So if it is really all that
important to treat certain meteorites (such as the Monahans) with such care,
why doesn't EVERY collection in the U.S. (Or the World for that matter) keep
ALL their stuff down at JSC, (or at least all the fragile stuff)?  Or why
don't they all build labs will provide the same anti-contamination security
levels that NASA has?

I suggested to Dr. Rubin that since NASA submitted the information to the
Nomenclature Committee AND since they have written a paper for the
Meteoritical Society Meeting next month, that they should be very happy, and
even very eager, to donate their 20g uncontaminated piece of the Monahans
(stone), as the protocol suggests, to the Smithsonian or one of the other
"real" research collections.  But if these "real" research collections are not
capable of properly preserving the Monahans (H5), then where should it go?

On a side note, a few days ago I quoted (or probably misquoted) a figure of
$90/g that it costs NASA for each specimen they bring back from Antarctica.
Does ANYONE know how much money has been spent on all the Antarctic missions?
Does anyone know the total of the number of grams of meteorites the Antarctic
expeditions have recovered?  (Bernd??  Ron??  Anyone??)   

If NASA would be willing to be the top bidder for the Monahans (fall) to start
their NEW Non-Antarctic Collection, wouldn't that be great?  And I would think
if they would offer even the average price they spend for the Antarctic
specimens to these boys, that wouldn't be too much to ask, would it?  

After all, the Ward County meteorite would then never have to leave Humid-less
Texas, and the boys would probably be willing to drive it down to Houston, so
NASA doesn't have to waste all that money in jet fuel and pilot expenses to
fly back out to Monahans in the private jet to pick it up again!

Just a suggestion!

But seriously, is any collection capable enough to preserve this one?

Steve
www.meteoritebroker.com
Follow-Ups: