-
#40 by smoliarm on 30 Apr, 2013 19:03
-
They concluded that it originates from the closest Mars moon, Phobos. I was there, in the conference room, and I can tell you that the general reaction was severe skepticism plus some fierce (and loud) sarcasm. I proudly note that I was not among critics; I liked the idea from the beginning. Not because Andrei was my dissertation advisor, I just liked the idea, although at the time it did sound crazy.
So did you like the idea because of evidence others missed or because it would be cool. Liking an idea because of wishful thinking without evidence if nothing to be proud of even if it does turn out to be right.
Of course neither should one dismiss an idea just because it sounds crazy, if the evidence back it up.
Anyway, very cool story. That is indeed one lucky meteorite.
I am a chemist, with some background in meteoritic mineralogy and petrology. Therefore, it was very convincing for me that crazy idea of Andrei and Michael explained all the chemical and petrological peculiarities of Kaidun very neatly, with very strict and simple logic.
And I'm glad you liked the story
-
#41 by smoliarm on 30 Apr, 2013 19:38
-
...the officials concluded it was a spy thing developed by CIA and smartly disguised by NASA as an innocent meteorite.
Our guys are pretty darn good, eh? You all missed the invisible one that they dropped only 100m away!
But what a great story! Thanks for sharing.
Well, the guys are good indeed, no doubt BUT, Russian generals - they did NOT miss the "invisible one" 
It's me - I shortened the story, I confined myself to solid facts.
But there is a gossip part:
When Russian generals learned that Kaidun is a "strange meteorite", but it does not have any embedded electronics, they concluded that Americans used it as a diversion, and during the loud and fiery "meteorite" descent they somehow quietly planted something really small. Now, this "object X" was like 2 or 3 square miles of desert in the middle of nowhere with pretty much nothing of the surface, everything was underground. So, they ordered like battalion of KGB officers, and these poor guys SIEVED all the sand on TWO square miles of desert, in the heat of Yemen summer, two times. They used 100-mesh sieves, reportedly.
But that's a gossip, Andrei was not there, he was in Moscow, analyzing Kaidun.
And thanks, I'm glad you liked this story
-
#42 by gbaikie on 30 Apr, 2013 23:59
-
I would say in general terms whether space rocks have minable water
is more difficult to determine than whether the Moon has minable water.
Mining water in space would very important in terms of our future and that
determining where there is minable water is something NASA should have
as high priority.
It seems to me, in terms total volumes of potential available water there is
more water in NEOs than on Moon. And in terms all rocks in space [all stuff smaller then 500 km in diameter] they have more water than Earth- and most of these rocks and this water is beyond Jupiter.
Mars has lots of water in terms the amount that is minable at some point in future- but Mars is a very, very dry world as compared to Earth.
The Moon has far less water than Mars, but it seems to me, the Moon has best chance in terms nearest future of finding minable water as compared to Mars or space rocks.
The dirt in your backyard [if you have one] could have more water, than a future site found on the Moon which is considered to be minable and is actually mined.
If you had a backyard which was 1 km square and it had swimming pool, it possible that a 1 km square location on the Moon has more water which can be mined.
It's also possible that if your 1 km square backyard was a desert, this could have more water than the best location on the Moon- and the Moon still has minable water.
So it's possible that earth desert conditions which have no well water available, is minable on the Moon.
And areas on Mars similar to a meters of frozen permafrost- or frozen swamp- having far more water than such desert backyard, which is not minable [in near term].
Or said different way, the reason we are NOT currently mining lunar water, is probably due NASA failing to explore the Moon to determine if and where there is minable water.
Whereas it's less likely that if NASA had thoroughly explored numerous space rocks and/or Mars whether we already be mining this water.
The issue of mining water in space is [IMO] about making rocket fuel.
Getting water so you wash your clothes and do the dishes is not what
I talking about in terms of minable water. It's good that some crew on some base can get water at their location, but it's not as significant in terms the future of humans living on Earth.
If people living in Antarctic can get water at their location, rather shipping the water to the location it could be a important economic issue regarding this research station but has little to do with the future of humankind.
-
#43 by Robert Thompson on 01 May, 2013 04:32
-
-
#44 by JohnFornaro on 01 May, 2013 13:02
-
So, they ordered like battalion of KGB officers, and these poor guys SIEVED all the sand on TWO square miles of desert, in the heat of Yemen summer, two times...
The story gets better and better!
Are you saying that they combed the desert?
Dang. Hernalt beat me to it! -
#45 by Warren Platts on 01 May, 2013 14:04
-
@ smoliarm: the Kaidun meteorite story is fascinating. You should write it up as an article for the Space Review!
-
#46 by smoliarm on 01 May, 2013 21:10
-
So, they ordered like battalion of KGB officers, and these poor guys SIEVED all the sand on TWO square miles of desert, in the heat of Yemen summer, two times...
The story gets better and better!
Are you saying that they combed the desert?
Yes, but not with combs. They used sieves, like this one
And they did not just comb the surface, they had to do it TWO feet deep, for TWO square miles.Quote from: Warren Platts@ smoliarm: the Kaidun meteorite story is fascinating. You should write it up as an article for the Space Review!
Thanks
May be, I'll talk Andrei into it, it's his story after all, and he has more funny details about it.
For now, I leave it as NSF exclusive
-
#47 by JohnFornaro on 02 May, 2013 01:32
-
And they did not just comb the surface, they had to do it TWO feet deep, for TWO square miles.
So you're saying, in the *cough* SpaceBalls *cough* documentary, those guys were complaining too much for combing the desert? From the screeen shot offered by my "esteemed colleague" (and I use the term loosely) they only went to a depth of six inches. -
#48 by smoliarm on 02 May, 2013 09:06
-
And they did not just comb the surface, they had to do it TWO feet deep, for TWO square miles.
So you're saying, in the *cough* SpaceBalls *cough* documentary, those guys were complaining too much for combing the desert?
...
Yes, this follows from the Second Consequence of Forth Law of Thermodynamics:
"Any given system in any given process has an option to go for worse." -
#49 by KelvinZero on 02 May, 2013 10:47
-
On Phobos & Deimos composition:
...
Thanks for that too, smoliarm
-
#50 by Tass on 02 May, 2013 13:44
-
And they did not just comb the surface, they had to do it TWO feet deep, for TWO square miles.
That's one and a half million cubic meters. At ten liters a second it would take five years.
How many people were working on than combing? What kind of machinery did they have to help. -
#51 by smoliarm on 02 May, 2013 16:19
-
Well, for 2 sq. miles x 2 feet deep I got 3 million cubic meters. And, the original tale says that KGB guys did it twice, so it's more like 6 million m3, but who cares? -- I told it's a gossip, and gossip does not have to be verisimilar - by definition...And they did not just comb the surface, they had to do it TWO feet deep, for TWO square miles.
That's one and a half million cubic meters. At ten liters a second it would take five years.QuoteHow many people were working on than combing? What kind of machinery did they have to help.
It is highly classified, how would I know?
