What are the chances??

There is no question that meteorites that hit the moon could blast away
moon rock that will fall into the Earth gravity field.,and be found in
areas much like the Antarctic ice (where there are no rocks. So how
come when we find a meteorite we are told it came from Mars.? Moon
gravity (escape velocity) is less than Mars. Moon is millions of miles
closer. Is it all because it you want to sell a book Mars is a more
interesting object to talk about? Also keep in mind the moon does not
have an atmosphere to slow(friction) objects down. I think
man is possessed with his thoughts about Mars. It is red and that color
stirs up emotions Mars can spell war it you flip the "M" It was a
war semble in the old days. Truth is Mars surface other than its
poles looks very much like the surface of the moon. True it does change
with its dust storms,but its picture is dust and sharp looking rock
always. The change is more dust here or there after each storm. It is a
cold (like the moon) dusty dry surface.,and the first boot imprint(like
Armstrong's) on Mars will have the same look. The only difference will
be Mars dust will be deeper than the dust on the moon. I would
like to see more orbiters,than landers. I would like to know the size of
Mars core?. I would like to know how hot the core is?. I would
like to know why Mars does not have a magnetic field? This can be done
without landing on Mars. At this spacetime landing on Mars is to risky.
It uses up time. It tells us very little,and a well equipped orbiter can
tell us more. Bert

G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
There is no question that meteorites that hit the moon could blast away
moon rock that will fall into the Earth gravity field.,and be found in
areas much like the Antarctic ice (where there are no rocks. So how
come when we find a meteorite we are told it came from Mars.?

Well, if one does the chemical analysis, one finds within those rocks said to be
from Mars the same chemical characteristics of rocks analyzed on the surface of
Mars, which happen to be different from those characteristics found in Moon
rocks. To be very specific:

"The dozen or so rocks that are claimed to have come from Mars all have certain
characteristics of meteorites - surface features, crystal formations, and
mineral compositions - that are not found in terrestrial rocks. One was seen to
fall out of the sky, so we know they are from space. Most are basaltic lavas
around 1.4 billion years old, which is much younger than common lunar rocks or
other meteorites. By 1980, scientists had posed the question, Where in the
solar system could there have been volcanism 1.4 billion years ago? Some
researchers suggested Mars. The large number of craters on the Martian lava
plains suggest that they are about 1.4 billion years old. Finally, the Viking
landers measured the composition of the Martian atmosphere, which exactly
matches the gas trapped in the rocks" ("The Universe Revealed", by Chris Impey
and William K. Hartmann).

In article ,
(G=EMC^2 Glazier) writes:

I would like to know why Mars does not have a
magnetic field? This can be done without landing on Mars.

Hi Bert, (Welcome to 2004!

Actually the (Mars Global Surveyor) MGS orbiter has detected more than one
magnetic field. Although the planet as a whole does not have a main magnetic
field, there are numerous magnetic "hot spots" that provide sort of an umbrella
like protection for the atmosphere above those points from being degraded by
the solar wind and other space nasties. (Sounds like a good camping place.
Don't forget to bring some marshmallows!

http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA02008
http://www.solarviews.com/cap/mgs/magmap.htm

PIA02008 Magnetic-blob picture caption excerpt:
"The various Martian magnetic fields (right) do not encompass the entire planet
and are local. The Martian dynamo is extinct, and its magnetic fields are
'fossil' remnants of its ancient, global magnetic field."

As for the "core" of Mars, well, we don't have much more than an educated guess
about our own planet's core. Guess we better send those movie space cowboys up
there to drill a peep hole, (except for that BW guy who survived all the Die
Hard movies and then nuked himself on an asteroid.


Light mote vs. heavy beam
http://members.aol.com/RichClark7/read/mote.htm

Jesus' Birth (and related issues)
http://members.aol.com/RichClark7/read/birth_JC.htm

At this spacetime landing on Mars is to risky.
It uses up time. It tells us very little,and a well equipped orbiter can
tell us more. Bert


I think you belittle the human condition; we want to land on Mars to prove
we can. Therefore, we probably should.

D

Hi Richard I'm thinking of the Lunar Prospector. It went around the
moon and provided revealing composition and structure of the moon. Some
ice in shady areas of the poles. One of its most important findings is
it measured the moons "core" Moon's core holds only 2 percent of the
body's mass(Earth core is one third of the planets mass. The orbiting
Prospector found very little iron. Astronomers use the moon's iron
deficiency to create a theory that the moon came from the outer part of
Earth and the Earth's iron had already sunk to the planet's core. (I
hate that theory) Richard you can see lots of stuff can be learned by
orbiting a planet. We find oil by are orbiters I read about
Lunar Prospector about 4 years ago. I know it could change its orbit to
a low elliptical orbit. That means it could get very close to the moon's
surface,and had thrusters when needed to avoid hitting the moon.
Its last experiment was to crash into a shady ice area to strengthen the
evidence. This experiment would include the Hubble,for it might be able
to see traces of water vapor in the plume. Never read how that came
out????? We learned a lot about Venus"s surface with radar.
HAPPY NEW YEAR Bert

Scott You know that the 830 LB of moon rock we tested is a lot
different than rock here on Earth. So why do astronomers keep telling us
the moon was once part of the Earth? Now that we are sure what
composition moon rocks have Why don't we find any moon rocks,in areas
like the Antarctica? Until you tell me otherwise I think Moon rocks
should be millions of times easier to find. Just think of distance. Just
think of gravity etc. Bert

D What you say is the way it is. I just wanted to see it on
television. Maybe we should have the Beagle mass produced in China. They
could produce 25 for the same money. That gives us 25 more chances,and
all could be launched the same day. There is safety in numbers. Nature
taught us that. Bert PS I think we reached a spacetime to think
like Wal-Mart

G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
Scott You know that the 830 LB of moon rock we tested is a lot
different than rock here on Earth. So why do astronomers keep telling us
the moon was once part of the Earth? Now that we are sure what
composition moon rocks have Why don't we find any moon rocks,in areas
like the Antarctica? Until you tell me otherwise I think Moon rocks
should be millions of times easier to find. Just think of distance. Just
think of gravity etc. Bert


Actually, the sources I have here indicate there are quite a bit of similarities
between returned Moon rocks and terrestrial rocks, specifically those in the
outer layer of the Earth. The major difference is the paucity of water and
volatile elements in Moon rocks - there simply is none to speak of.

Second, there are meteorites recovered that seem to match the composition of
Moon rocks.

Scott My sources differ from your sources because I'm told there is a
"big" difference between Moon and Earth rocks. My source tells me there
is a rare element(can't off hand think of its name) that is rare on
Earth but not so rare on the Moon. This evidence is fudged over. For
some reason they love the moon being part of the Earth,and this big
chunk was chopped away from the Earths surface by being hit by a planet
that was three times the size of the Earth. This big rock was able to
go into orbit and we call it our Moon. They use this theory for
Pluto,and its Moon Charon. They don't use it for the gas planets. It is
a very bad theory. Bert

"J. Scott Miller" wrote:

Actually, the sources I have here indicate there are quite a bit of similarities
between returned Moon rocks and terrestrial rocks, specifically those in the
outer layer of the Earth. The major difference is the paucity of water and
volatile elements in Moon rocks - there simply is none to speak of.

Isn't the Moon also comparatively poorer in the heavier elements like
nickel, and correspondingly richer in the lighter (but still
non-volatile) ones like aluminum?

--
Odysseus