[meteorite-list] Iron Meteorite found on Mars: "Done what could be done"

[MexicoDoug at aol.com]

Dear List,

The initial articles forwarded kindly to the list  mentioned that "scientists 
were not interested in the meteorite" quite  bluntly.  That to me was really 
a slap in the face to all of us, including  the meteoritical society.  After 
all, the significance of the find,  especially to us meteoritical folks is 
completely incredible -as an  understatement-, I would suggest.

So I looked up Dr. McSween, a past  president of the Met Soc and of course, 
the author of a priceless book in many  of our libraries: "Meteorites and their 
Parent Planets".  In addition to  being a contributor to the Rover mission 
itself (in what capacity I do not  know), I thought, if anyone would be more 
interested and able to do something  about that, it would be the esteemed Dr. 
McSween.

I received an answer  today from the kind and respectful Professor, though it 
was sort of sad in many  ways - in the sense of being informed that one's 
meteorite is really a  meteorwrong.  Apparently, the meteorite was used in "brush 
mode to brush  away whatever could be" and then he mentioned that the RAT 
actually "could not  grind metal" apparently at all.  And what "could be done 
probably was  done".

Analysis of this data to me, could have been the subject of  several exotic 
and exciting PhD theses, grants toward the study of meteoritics,  etc., but 
alas 'twas not in the cards.  As I personally was hoping for a  better prepared 
grinder, that news sort of went over like a wet blanket.   The point of saving 
it to the end, thus is not very promising if the capability  simply isn't 
there.  And if Hap say what was done, was done, as hard as it  is to accept, well, 
I'll be chalking this one up to a case of terrible reporting  to a public 
conscious and interested in meteorites, a design/poorly anticipated  issue 
overlooked on the RAT team, and hopefully a mistake to be learned from  next mission 
when earth sends state of the art geological  tools.

Sterling, I appreciate your comments.  While the statistical  argument of Ron 
of course is true, they are comments like yours that gets  humankind in high 
gear to find out and do exploration in the first place.   That extra curiosity 
factor that got the Rovers to Mars in the first  place.  Probably whoever 
uttered that dumb comment about scientists not  being interested in the meteorite 
at all and got me unwound too, is going to  cause both the constructive (your 
type of brainstorming comments which are at  the foundation of scientific 
thought) ideas to take a slap for the insensitive  and foolish ones (like to 
press release we read initially).  Also the press  release would seem to have 
mischaracterized the capability of the RAT suggesting  it was possible whenin fact 
it appears that it simply is not.  Anyway that  is how I'm reading this one 
unless someone comes up with a more plausible  explanation on why that first 
asteroid ever encountered and "touched" in a  controlled manner, in an alien 
environment is simply going to have tire tracks  going by it like all those we've 
seen in the Sahara desert, until someone  actually recognizes how precious 
and what storehouses of information are  meteorites.
 
Back to blueberries and strawberries and wake up music for the moment I  
guess, until the next great discover of this vastly successful mission and its  
participants.
Saludos, Doug




En un mensaje con fecha  01/19/2005 2:09:39 PM Mexico Standard Time, 
baalke at zagami.jpl.nasa.gov  escribe:
> >They don't want to damage the RAT
> >and save it  for the rest of the mission.  
> 
> Well, like I pointed out  last night, how about the end of the mission?
> 
The mission will  probably end when a critical component on the rover 
fails, and we don't know  when that will happen.  Also, the Rover will
continue its exploration  into new territory, and will be moving away
from the meteorite.