[meteorite-list] Fireballs From The Sky: Bombarded
From: Chris Peterson <clp_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 11:43:55 -0600
Debris clouds get spread out pretty quickly by gravitational perturbations.
An old collision in the asteroid belt between differentiated bodies would
produce different types of material, but it wouldn't be in any sort of
coherent orbit such that we'd see a surge in activity.
In fact, there's not much evidence that we are seeing a surge in activity,
and if we are, simple statistics is all you need to explain it.
Chris L Peterson
----- Original Message -----
From: "Meteorites USA" <eric at meteoritesusa.com>
To: <rocks at projectargus.com>; <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 11:32 AM
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Fireballs From The Sky: Bombarded
> Doesn't one large asteroid (miles across) have multiple types of
> meteoritic material? Iron at the core, silicate and iron mix surrounding
> that, chondritic material, and achondritic nearer the surface of an
> asteroid. Or am I watching too many meteorite videos? ;)
> If accretion is correct and iron migrates to the center of a large body,
> then it would make sense that lighter less dense materials would surround
> that. When two asteroids impact wouldn't they cause all these types to
> intermingle and spray out in all directions? In addition they create
> impact melts and breccias as well. What about carbonaceuous chondrites?
> If two large asteroids crashed into one another some million years or so
> ago wouldn't there be huge numbers of all different types of material
> thrown out into all directions? Couldn't there be multiple falls
> consisting of different types of meteorites but originating from the same
> event in space? I realize I may be missing some important facts here but
> if large asteroids do in fact consist of all meteoritic composition types,
> couldn't you argue that some or all of these falls may come from one
> event? I know this question might have a few people yelling at me that I
> don't know what I'm talking about. You're right! That's why I'm asking...
Received on Mon 30 Mar 2009 01:43:55 PM PDT